Slashdot Mirror


Uber In Retreat Across Europe

HughPickens.com writes: Mark Scott reports at the NY Times that Uber is rapidly expanding its ride-hailing operations across the globe but some of Uber's fiercest opposition has come in Europe, where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark. In Frankfort, Uber shut its office after just 18 months of operation spurred in part by drivers like Hasan Kurt, the owner of a local licensed taxi business, who had refused to work with the American service. Uber antagonized local taxi operators by prioritizing its low-cost service, and then could not persuade enough licensed drivers to sign up, even after it offered to pay for licenses and help with other regulatory costs that totaled as much as $400 for new drivers. "It's not part of the German culture to do something like" what Uber did says Kurt. "We don't like it, the government doesn't like it, and our customers don't like it."

Uber also pulled out of Hamburg and Düsseldorf after less than two years of operating in each of those German cities. In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop, in Paris and Madrid, Uber has been confronted by often violent opposition from existing taxi operators, while in London, local regulators are mulling changes that could significantly hamper Uber's ambitions there. Uber's aggressive tactics have turned off potential customers like Andreas Müller who tried the company's Frankfurt service after first using Uber on a business trip in Chicago. Müller said he liked the convenience of paying through his smartphone, but soon turned against the company after reading that it had continued operating in violation of court orders and did not directly employ its drivers, who are independent contractors. "That might work in the U.S., but that's not how things are done here in Germany," says Müller. "Everyone must respect the rules."

460 comments

  1. Respect for the law for everyone, not just the poo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's what sets Europe apart from the oligarchies and part of what the city slickers want to get rid of in the UK.

  2. Going against established self interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no Law that trumps the right of a 'murican technology company to make money, apparently.

  3. Being an asshole doesn't work by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who would have thought?

    1. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We are the Silicon Valley. Lower your firewalls and surrender your appers. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

    2. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are the Silicon Valley. Lower your firewalls and surrender your appers. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

      Resistance is not futile. Hugh the Borg.
      If even a Borg understands this, then all hope is not lost for you hillbillies.

    3. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Around here, Taxi companies are run and worked at by some of the worst assholes of all. Show up when they want, take detours and pretend not to understand you, gouge you as much as possible. I'm glad someone is undercutting them.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet it is a new, even bigger monopolist. Are you sure that this is the solution to your problems?

    5. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Here in Calgary, they only managed to operate for about 3 weeks before the city got a court order to shut them down. The Taxi lobby in Calgary is extremely strong, almost a cartel. In the past proposals have been made to run the trains past 2am (all bars close at 2) to reduce drunk driving. Taxi lobby shut it down cause that's their bread and butter.

      Uber is a great service, I used it briefly well I was here and continue to use it when travelling. I have no sympathy for the taxi company monopoly. Uber was 60% the cost of a taxi and I would bet the drivers get paid more. Hoping they return soon.

    6. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the trains will run on time, eh?

    7. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I for one am somewhat surprised. Anecdote time:

      See, you live in one of the most civilized countries on this planet and thus are used to the Taxi service being something that works. Not so in the rest of the world, including some of the wilder edges of Europe. In recent news we had this "A taxi driver formerly convicted of murder (but recently released) attacked and beat up a police officer in front of parliament". This really happened and it happened a few months ago. And the sad part is that it's not really news. While assault and robbery by taxi drivers is fortunately mostly a thing of the (recent) past, we're used to them driving drunk, without the full set of necessary licenses or with as much as 50+ outstanding traffic violations. They're also contractors for the taxi company, so they get no more protection (or control over) than Uber drivers.

      So it was refreshing to have Uber deliver a service where you know your driver isn't involved in any of the scary shit you're used to getting from taxi drivers.

      I say "was", because there's a lot of money in the taxi business and banning Uber and enforcing that ban was one of the fastest legal actions I've seen this decade.

    8. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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?

    9. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      In many ways, that sounds just like Uber.

    10. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by Altus · · Score: 1

      They aren't a protected monopoly and they do have completion in many american cities. This is a much more open market than traditional taxies with number limited medallions that are traded around by rich cab company owners at exorbitant prices.

      The people who run uber are total assholes its true but they are a huge step up from the traditional US taxi industry. That said, because I dislike them, their policies and their behaviors, I chose to use Lyft instead whenever possible. I would consider another competitor if one comes along as well.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    11. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Altus · · Score: 1

      Not my experience at all. though I have had a few drivers with whom communication was a challenge the fact that I enter the destination address in the app mitigates that. The GPS on their phones gives them a quick route and I can review the route taken later... if someone is taking me for a literal and figurative ride then I would rate them very low which very quickly destroys their earnings potential with uber. Likely because of that I have never experienced a driver who took me on a significantly sub-optimal route.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not about the drivers, it's the company itself.

      Remember when they tried to bullshit their way out when someone complained that their drivers were pretty hostile towards disabled customers?

      That's just one example of their attitude problem. They think laws don't apply to them and that it's okay to pretend they're anything other than a taxi company and that they do not have to play by the rules.

      I have no love for not-so-good-ol' taxis. I'd welcome some proper competition, but these sleazebags are not it. A company competing with them without any shenanigans would certainly get my business.

    13. Re:Being an asshole doesn't work by Altus · · Score: 1

      True, but to some extent Lyft pushes a lot of the same laws people are talking about. Its not the grey area of the law stuff I am concerned with. You are absolutely right that their handling of things that the occasional bad driver does (theft or assault or discrimination) is totally awful and they by all accounts are a toxic company.

      Lyft on the other hand has a fairly good reputation for treating drivers and customers fairly well and their service is every bit as convenient as UBER. I think if they were the leader in the market people would be much more positive about these services in general even if the pink mustache and fist bump are really stupid.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    14. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the medieval guild system is overcome, more competitors will pop up. European corporatism is the bigger problem.

    15. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just look at what other countries with functioning taxi services do. It's really not difficult. That so many parts of the US can't even get taxis working correctly explains so much.

    16. Re: Being an asshole doesn't work by euroq · · Score: 1

      Yet it is a new, even bigger monopolist.

      I did not use Uber for a long time because a few things happened to me that lost their trust. Luckily there was Lyft and Sidecar. Now Uber has regained my business through many reasons, such as better service, faster times, and cheaper fares. Sidecar has gone out of business. So no, it's not a monopoly.

      Taxis, on the other hand, have completely lost my business. I've still used them a few times and the best they've ever done is be as good as some of my experiences with Uber/Lyft.

      There is no monopoly, nor should there be. Taxi unions ARE a monopoly.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  4. Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here in Belgium (Brussels for me) lots of people used Uber, even after the threat to close them down. Its cheaper and more convenient than the expensive and slow taxi service. Most everyone I know has used them at least once and everyone (in my circle) was not happy with them pulling out of Brussels after threat of legal action.

    I think if you talk to anyone who isn't a taxi driver or associated with the police, you'd find they like Uber and are not happy with the monopoly of the taxi service on this industry.

    Of course, Belgium is well known as a 'fuck the rules' sort of country. But we're also the seat of the EU so the irony is not lost on me about this story.

    Still, most people would have been happier if our fucking governments had found a way to work with Uber instead of just bowing over to the taxi unions.

    1. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, Belgium is well known as a 'fuck the rules' sort of country. But we're also the seat of the EU so the irony is not lost on me about this story.

      I see no irony. The unelected mafia in Brussels is meant to fuck the rules such as democracy and rule of law.

    2. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide examples of this. The MEPs are all elected and have to approve all the policy decisions, so I don't understand how democracy isn't working in the EU.

    3. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here in America, we see that the winner-take-all economy leaves us with monopolies that are even more inefficient, greedy and unresponsive than the unions and regulated monopolies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And you saw what Uber did to their competitors like Lyft.

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, they'll be able to raise prices for riders and drive their "contractors" (employees without rights) down to third-world wages by getting them to compete with each other to be the lowest bidder.

    4. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean the same Lyft that raised over USD $2 billion in investment and has the support of the car industry?

      This Lyft, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft

    5. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's capitalism 101. Drive out the competition by any means possible (or reach an agreement with the competition), jack prices to whatever you want. Buy politicians to legislate against new competitors. Profit!

    6. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I think you have a fare waiting on line 6.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    7. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Guybrush_T · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same in France. Stupidly restrictive taxi regulation lead to a nonsense : taxi drivers are so powerful that they don't care about customers, there's not enough taxis (you can wait for an hour to get one), and the service is just poor and expensive. As a side effect, taxi license reselling has become an investment for newcomers and a life insurance for old drivers, which makes it impossible to get out of the system without getting all drivers mad (and in a bad situation).

      But the fault is on the taxi lobby for pushed their monopoly too far. Some would say it is understandable, because it means better situation for them, so why not do it ?

      My answer : because some day, it may backfire at you, and you'll deserve it.

      If people are upset and someone tries to change the balance, you'll get no support from the population. I don't know how people feel in Germany, but in France, most people who use taxis frequently are quite happy with Uber trying to shake the coconut tree (as we say).

    8. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here in America, [...] Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, they'll be able to raise prices for riders and drive their "contractors" (employees without rights) down to third-world wages by getting them to compete with each other to be the lowest bidder.

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed — at Uber's considerable legal expense. I fail to see how you fail to see that this is a win for everyone except entrenched taxi businesses enjoying a state-enforced monopoly. Taxi licensing may work in Germany, I can't speak to that, but Here in America, taxi licensing does absolutely none of the things it is supposed to do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by jaa101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber.

      No, because this type of service is a natural monopoly, especially when operated by a large multi-national. Nobody wants to use a different app for every city. It would be just like trying to compete against eBay in the online auction market.

    10. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Except a competitor is just a half-assed app away.

      You speak as if it is the old, government entrenched interest.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm European, not a taxi driver and not police. I don't agree with your sentiments at all, no one I know of has used Uber and I doubt they would. Uber are an arrogant, race-to-the-bottom company. They only want to create their own monopoly, long term they won't save consumers any money over taxi services which will be squeezed out of the market (due to underpricing). Taxi services do need to start getting more internet and phone application friendly.

    12. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, because this type of service is a natural monopoly, especially when operated by a large multi-national.

      How ironic, you're complaining about the danger of a natural "monopoly", which is not really a monopoly, when we're already dealing with the poor results of a state-sponsored monopoly, which really is. Indeed, if that monopoly were serving The People, Uber would not even exist for lack of interest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by gaiageek · · Score: 1

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber.

      No, because this type of service is a natural monopoly, especially when operated by a large multi-national. Nobody wants to use a different app for every city. It would be just like trying to compete against eBay in the online auction market.

      Not really. eBay has a monopoly in that, if you're a buyer looking for something rare or unique at auction, eBay is where you're going to look first, and thus as a seller, eBay is where you're going to look at selling first. But it's not like a ride is anything unique, it's not like Uber's customers have brand loyalty, and AFAIK it's not like an Uber driver can't also work for a competitor (that's an interesting question actually). Plus, I'm guessing the majority of Uber users are only using Uber in their home city. I'm guessing all it would take for anyone to try a competitor is hearing "they're cheaper than Uber". And a competitor could do that if they're giving a higher percentage to the drivers.

      Time will tell, but what may be more telling is what happens once autonomous taxi services enter the picture. If Uber doesn't get on that themselves, I could see that putting them out of business.

    14. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      if that monopoly were serving The People, Uber would not even exist for lack of interest.

      How ironic your point is given that the story title is "Uber In Retreat Across Europe". The taxi industry, which is not a state-sponsored monopoly in many places, would seem to be serving the people. Just because the government requires taxi drivers to be licensed doesn't make it a monopoly any more that ordinary drivers' licences make cars a government monopoly.

      However ironic you may think my point is, the danger is real that Uber will achieve widespread dominance and then be in a position to abuse their position. Unlike governments you won't be able to vote them out.

    15. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Germany checking in: I've yet to be in a poor German taxi. The cars have been in excellent condition, the drivers knew what they were doing, the prices were transparent and offered value for money. No complaints so far!

    16. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And which country are you in? I was referencing Belgium, which is part of Europe. And just because you agree with the germans doesn't make my opinion any less valid. The culture clash is mostly between politicians and uber (unless you are in the UK, ireland, or germany. those are the only places where citizens seem to want less choice in the markt.)

    17. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed — at Uber's considerable legal expense. I fail to see how you fail to see that this is a win for everyone except entrenched taxi businesses enjoying a state-enforced monopoly.

      Wait, once Uber has driven all competition out of business, anyone will be able to compete? That seems contradictory.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How ironic your point is given that the story title is "Uber In Retreat Across Europe". The taxi industry, which is not a state-sponsored monopoly in many places, would seem to be serving the people.

      It would seem to be, but since the entrenched industry has the advantage of a state-sponsored monopoly, it's impossible to make that determination from the available facts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re: Don't speak for 'all of europe' by angulion · · Score: 3, Informative

      Background, I'm from Finland and I have a close friend who is a taxi driver.

      Here the availability and the waiting time of "real" taxis is usually not an issue. Not even sure if Uber exists in my city. I do however see that there is a huge disconnect between what taxis are (and are obliged to) and what the general public perceives and this is part of the reason why people might like Uber while complaining about taxi prices.
      Here taxis are not one big company, even if all taxis are similar and identical pricing - they usually are 1-4 car companies that have astronomical insurance costs and have to pay copyright mafia if radio is on. The insurance cost is a major factor why they are more expensive than Uber, also something most customers never know about unless they are in an accident where they get hurt or belongings damaged. In these cases the customer is fully covered unlike in some Uber car.
      In addition the small taxi companies have to have their work healthcare, retirement payments and other things in order.

      The amount of taxis the taxis companies cannot affect even if they wanted - there is a certain amount of licenses for a certain area (by gov. or municipality, not sure which).

      Because how the system works, there unfortunately also lies the reason why there isn't a fancy, with serious money developed app for phones.

      Tl;dr Drivers and customers are protected in "real" taxis.

    20. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belgian is known as fuck the rules but pay 60% in taxes if you are single and make more than 30k a year :-/

    21. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      Please provide examples of this. The MEPs are all elected and have to approve all the policy decisions, so I don't understand how democracy isn't working in the EU.

      From the perspective of the 'Murcan, democracy is broken in the EU because there are (usually) more than 2 political parties. The UK being the most non-broken democracy (to 'Murcans).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    22. Re: Don't speak for 'all of europe' by angulion · · Score: 1

      Additionally the all the drivers have a quite tough test before getting accepted where they have to know where over thousand or so streets are.

    23. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Oh the irony. Ride-share services like Uber and Lyft only exist at all because taxi services gouge customers and suck terribly -- thanks to monopolies granted to government-chosen favorite sons like this piece of shit.

    24. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The culture clash is mostly between politicians and uber (unless you are in the UK, ireland, or germany. those are the only places where citizens seem to want less choice in the markt.)

      You equate not wanting to drive down wages with not wanting more choice in the market? That seems a tacit admission that the market drives down wages.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    25. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopolies only exist when the state points a gun.

    26. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one thing: minimize labor costs.

    27. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wait, once Uber has driven all competition out of business, anyone will be able to compete? That seems contradictory.

      That only seems contradictory because that is not what I said. I said its competition, which in this case means the entrenched state-sponsored monopoly. I'll grant you, though, that if you were inclined to be deliberately disingenuous, you could read my comment that way. I will attempt to remember that this is a community of amateur lawyers in the future.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, Brussels. If there is any one place in the world that would be a better argument for Uber, I don't know it.

      I am generally opposed to Uber's exploitation and it's helping yet another profession race to the bottom. BUT, Brussels is the place where the opposite is happening. Local taxi service is notoriously bad. They will refuse rides. They will make you wait over an hour for a taxi and THEN refuse it. They will make you pick up additional passengers. And so on, it's the worst major city as far as traditional taxis are concerned. My company, Fortune 20, has drivers on full retainer to help drive the management to and from the airport, as it is often next to impossible to get a taxi in time on Friday afternoons.

    29. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    30. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Oh, the irony. That's what happens when you destroy socialism in the Soviet Union and unleash entrepreneurs to come to this country and show us how to make money in a free market.

      The free market is like a trans-uranium element. It lasts for about 10^-6 seconds before it degrades into a monopoly.

    31. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Except that most of the real monopolies are driven by the ability to involve the government, somehow.

      The big banks? They should have failed and gone bankrupt because of their shitty practices. The government didn't let them. Both Republican AND Democratic administrations.

      Ma Bell, used to be Comcast levels of unresponsiveness and they were fully enabled by the government.

      The taxi services, by being forced by medallions into forming an exclusive club, have learned to take advantage of their government protected monopolies by cutting back services to maximize their profits.

      Yes, the free market is not perfect, but there is probably nothing worse than a capitalist economy which is being prevented from receiving any negative market signals by government action.

    32. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by rochrist · · Score: 1

      taxi drivers are so powerful that they don't care about customers.... That's ludicrous. Do you have ANY idea what taxi drivers actually make?

    33. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      uber isn't trying to shake the tree.
      uber doesn't even want to change the tree.
      uber wants to ignore the tree while everyone else is still forced to pay attention to it.
      that is the entirety of their plan, and the source of their profitability.

      if the tree actually got changed, and ubers advantage disappeared because the field was leveled, uber would be unhappy.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    34. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since the entrenched industry has the advantage of a state-sponsored monopoly

      What the fuck are you talking about? There are thousands of taxi firms across Europe, sometimes competing, and sometimes operating in separate areas. The "entrenched industry" IS the market, not one spooky evil

      What Uber wants is a new set of rules which benefits its own specific business model at the expense of drivers, customers and competing taxi companies. It does precisely what Stagecoach does to drive competing bus companies out locally: undercut the moment competition appears, not by providing a better service but by virtue of its size meaning it can sustain huge temporary losses. The whole "zero barier of entry" bullshit is for people who think that capitalism is like .com Boom #1 Capitalism.

    35. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Which really *isn't* capitalism. A free market should not have the government stepping in to allow the companies to sit pretty on their gains.

      The only real argument against capitalism in that sense is that it seems to be impossible to keep the government from reinforcing monopolies or bailing out losers in the name of "saving the economy" or to protect cronies. A theoretical government that is able to resist using its power to affect the economy would result in a considerably different result.

      Look at Uber. Where people aren't trying to sue them out of operation, they're eating the lunches of taxi services because they offer better service. Of course, the taxi services have their hands tied by government regulations, so it is understandable they'd fight back, but that doesn't change the fact that taxi services complain about being regulated on one hand, and use that excuse to provide poor service on the other.

      And Uber will not last if it does not continue to provide the best service. As long as there is nothing barring competition from challenging Uber, even Uber in a high market penetration position could be taken on. That's because if there is no law creating barriers to entry, Uber has to continue to make good business decisions to avoid eventually being cut down by an upstart.

      The real problem with capitalism and the free market is that we've never actually seen it. And perhaps it may be fair to say that this is also why it is a red herring. If you can never have your perfect free market with no interference, then perhaps we should stop talking about how the free market is "theoretically" better when we're talking about the problems it has in its current incarnation.

      I believe that honestly, a free market does not mean turning the world into a corporatist dystopia. I think that's bunk. Consider that corporations themselves are legal constructs and realize that those constructs which supposedly represent the ultimate in free market capitalism aren't even necessary for free markets. They're yet another way the government allows individuals to have a safety net under them when competing in a market. A true free market does not work unless you can actually fail and that you have to force yourself to hedge and add safety by good business practices. Otherwise, businesspeople do not internalize good practices as good business, but instead see those good practices imposed by government as something that can make them more profitable if they can figure out how to cheat them.

    36. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

    37. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

    38. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

    40. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

    41. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the free market is not perfect, but there is probably nothing worse than a capitalist economy which is being prevented from receiving any negative market signals by government action.

      A monopoly in an imperfect free market can be pretty bad and sometimes worse.

      Americans don't realize this because it's been so long since we had a market that was really unregulated by the government. But you can look around the world for examples.

      A year after "communism was destroyed" along with the Soviet Union, we had a handful of oligarchs with as much power and monopoly as the previous Soviet oligarchs and even less accountability.

      Rather than running a cotton processing plant, they could make more profits by closing the plant, firing the workers, and selling the unprocessed cotton on the international market to cotton processors in India or China.

      Or look at the unregulated Chinese pharmaceutical industry, which was the subject of a New York Times series a few years ago.

      The Chinese chemical manufacturers would sell powdered milk for infant formulas, and add a toxic chemical that gave a false reading when the wholesale buyers analyzed it, and made it look like it had higher protein content and therefore commanded a higher price. But infants would get sick and die.

      The Chinese chemical manufacturers sold a syrup for children's cough medicine, but substituted a cheaper toxic product for the more expensive pharmaceutical product. (I think they substituted ethylene glycol for glycerine.) On the order of 100 children died as a result.

      Things like this were common in the U.S. in the 19th century and early 20th century, which is why we created the Food & Drug Administration and why we have government regulations. Once you remove the regulations, the same things happen again.

      In Europe the free market gave us Thalidomide. Then they started regulating again.

    42. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed â" at Uber's considerable legal expense. I fail to see how you fail to see that this is a win for everyone except entrenched taxi businesses enjoying a state-enforced monopoly. Taxi licensing may work in Germany, I can't speak to that, but Here in America, taxi licensing does absolutely none of the things it is supposed to do.

      You're making a dangerous assumption that Uber won't lobby for legislative changes that bar easy entry into the field.

      Once Uber has destroyed the taxi companies (and there are signs it's happening, for better or worse), Uber can just as easy do an Airbnb and lobby for legislation that's friendly for Uber, and nasty for everyone else.

      Taxi regulations are complex because of the nasty things that were done in the past - discrimination ("Oh, you're a cripple? See ya!" - most taxi companies actually have to provide non-discriminatory service), fare jacking (taxi companies can't do surge pricing, for example), etc.

      Of course, taxi companies have gotten fat and lazy and are crappy because they also introduced laws that give them power. Uber's fighting this, but that doesn't mean they won't do the same once they beat them. Hell, they'd be stupid not to freeze out potential competitors and become the "new taxi company".

    43. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The huge capital costs of lobbying legislators in places like Colorado.

    44. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be ignoring that, in Germany and a lot of other places, Uber are breaking the law. Several laws in fact.
      For example, regular taxi drivers require professional insurance for their passengers. The "independent contractors" part probably also undercuts minimum wage laws.
      It's easy to undercut them in price when you don't follow the regulations, which were put in place for a reason.
      So, I'd rather have a legal "monopoly" than see it be replaced by one operating illegally.

    45. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Belgian is known as fuck the rules but pay 60% in taxes if you are single and make more than 30k a year :-/

      Wrong. http://www.taxrates.org/Europe...

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    46. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Well, here in Germany I would never use Uber. I prefer the idea of driving with someone who has been accredited, is insured and licensed, than stepping into a car with a random anybody who happens to own a car. Also I know that the taxi driver can support a family with his job, whereas the Uber driver is probably doing a second or third job for extra income.

    47. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Paris taxi who refused my wife and I, because he didn't want to go to the train station ("too close") despite being at the front of a taxi queue. Or the next 3 in line. We missed a train and incurred a 4 hour wait, and booking fee.

    48. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by voss · · Score: 2

      Chinese system is not a free market it is cronyism. Information regarding the tainted milk was suppressed and lawyers in china were pressured by officials not to get involved.

    49. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You have cronyism in every economic system.

      In a free market without government regulation, cronyism is more powerful. After we had the effective regulation of the FDA in this country, it was easier to fight cronyism.

    50. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      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.

      Even there there's some competitions. Because Ebay decided some legal items weren't worth the hassle, they've banned quite a few items. Thus, auction sites selling said items* sprung up, and it provides a wedge that if Ebay ever gets too bad, there are experienced businesses that would be able to expand and take on more business.

      *My personal example is firearms** and firearm accessories, though there's more than that.
      **No, you can't legally just buy a firearm off an auction site and have it mailed to you. It has to be shipped to an FFL, where you will pick it up in person with a background check.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    51. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, Belgium is well known as a 'fuck the rules' sort of country

      Whereas Germany is known as a live by the rules, die by the rules, kill by the rules kind of country. Except when Mutti says it's OK to cheat. I wonder if my fellow Germans will ever pull that authoritarian stick out of their asses.

    52. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Germany checking in: I've yet to be in a poor German taxi. The cars have been in excellent condition, the drivers knew what they were doing, the prices were transparent and offered value for money. No complaints so far!

      That's a bunch of opinion... For it to carry any weight you might want to consider backing it up with some facts...

      (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8578249&cid=51254733)

    53. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Here in America, [...] Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, they'll be able to raise prices for riders and drive their "contractors" (employees without rights) down to third-world wages by getting them to compete with each other to be the lowest bidder.

      Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed — at Uber's considerable legal expense.

      Its cute that you believe that.

      The regulatory barriers may be removed but given how Uber treats its competitors I'd bet that once they've driven out their competitors they'll implement their own barriers to entry... and remember kiddo's, just because they're not governmental barriers does not mean their not artificial barriers.

      With complete control of the market, Uber will be in a position to intimidate, cajole, threat and outright DOS any startups and given that they've already tried to do it to Lyft, do you honestly think they wont do it when they have a monopoly?

      However it wont ever come to that because in a few years, Uber will be a joke you say when you dont have enough wind to pass. They're already losing money hand over fist (to the tune of US$100 million a quarter) so here's what will happen. The taxi industries will have to tough it out for a few years because Uber will slowly claw back the drivers cut, given that most drivers are not making money as it is more and more will realise working for Uber is a losing proposition. This means you're going to end up with the least competent drivers and the most dangerous cars working for Uber, even the irrational hate of the "taxi industry" wont stop them haemorrhaging customers because paying more for a taxi is safer and smells better than an Uber jitney.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    54. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      With complete control of the market,

      Ha ha ha! Uber can't get complete control of their marketing department, let alone the taxi market.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Precisely - it is my opinion. That's why I started by explaining that they are my experiences. The post you linked to contained someone claiming to be presenting facts across an entire industry in a large city. Can you see the difference?

    56. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not all taxis work that way, so you can stop making that argument, as it is factually inaccurate and not applicable to great swathes of the world.

    57. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't care about great swathes of the world, I only care about how they are in my country. The OP made factually inaccurate claims because he assumed taxis in his country work the same everywhere, and he needs to be called out on it.

    58. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I was being a little snarky. But I still think that if Uber were to drive the local taxi monopoly out of business, it would be harder to compete with. It would have dominance in that market which would be hard to overcome by a new competitor.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    59. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The state-sponsored monopoly which simply doesn't exist in many parts of the world, but which you seem to assume does exist, because wherever you come from hasn't figured out how to manage taxis correctly. We are discussing Europe, not the US.

    60. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The state-sponsored monopoly which simply doesn't exist in many parts of the world, but which you seem to assume does exist, because wherever you come from hasn't figured out how to manage taxis correctly. We are discussing Europe, not the US.

      Yes, they have a state-sponsored oligopoly. I guess I'll start referring to it as such.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by eharvill · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Paris taxi who refused my wife and I, because he didn't want to go to the train station ("too close") despite being at the front of a taxi queue. .

      Similar incident happened to me in Madrid a few years ago. The driver was lucky my Spanish is terrible otherwise he would have gotten an earful. I was also pissed at my Spaniard wife for not giving him an earful for me. I would have loved the ability to call up an Uber right in front of that Taxi line. Too bad they are outlawed in Spain too.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    62. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You've made that same error in quite a few posts in this thread...

    63. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You can do - it won't make you look any brighter, but if you have fun, go right ahead.

    64. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, ackshully, taxi licensing does many things that you don't notice because they've been successfully regulated.

      They cannot casually set whatever prices whenever they feel like it. They cannot refuse service to certain classes of customer. They are very likely to get in very big trouble if caught deliberately driving in circles to jack up the fare. They are required to carry suitable insurance, be properly licensed to carry people for money, and must keep their vehicles in proper working order.

      You don't notice the effects of these regulations - Until you ride in a taxi that doesn't have them.

      Those regulations are there for a reason, Mr. Galt. And they're there because some asshat took advantage of them not being there before and screwed up several of the unsuspecting public until those regulations were enacted and enforced.

      AC

    65. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary. Anyone can start a taxi company right now. People and drivers are usually not locked into a single company. Even an independent taxi driver can work by being called by pedestrians. He just need to stay in good spots.
      If Uber wins, even if you clone their app and reduce fees by half, drivers and customers will be stuck on Uber because that's where drivers and customers will be.

    66. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One big problem with capitalism is that, while it's great for producing wealth, it sucks at distributing it. The purpose of the economy is to serve the people, and one of the purposes of a capitalist is to screw the people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    67. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which really *isn't* capitalism.

      Which is why we don't like you pointing out that the most accurate term for US Capitalism is fascism. It makes us feel bad.

    68. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      By that definition, everything is a natural monopoly, because would you rather go to 3 stores to buy tools, clothes, and food, or just one, the Wal-Mart Supercenter?

      No, a natural monopoly is defined to be where the cost is less to have a single provider. But, since Uber uses contractors, the cost of the service is the same for them and anyone copying them. The cost is the contractor, and that's the same no matter which app sends them the rides.

      A separate app for every town isn't an issue.There'll be aggregator apps, like the travel apps that search multiple sites and such.

    69. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Once they've driven everyone with a different business model out of business, anyone could copy their business model to compete.

    70. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the same Belgium as mine clearly.

    71. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by euroq · · Score: 1

      From the perspective of the 'Murcan, democracy is broken in the EU because there are (usually) more than 2 political parties. The UK being the most non-broken democracy (to 'Murcans).

      Blah, blah, blah. 'Murcans don't think that. They're either 1. educated enough to know that's not the case, or 2. not educated enough to know about EU political parties.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    72. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by euroq · · Score: 1

      Lyft is doing quite well. In many markets, such as Atlanta, GA, USA, it is the preferred service. In San Francisco, almost everyone uses both Lyft and Uber depending on the arrival times and surge pricing.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    73. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can do - it won't make you look any brighter, but if you have fun, go right ahead.

      Wipe your mouth, kid. You've got some government on your lip.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    74. Re:Don't speak for 'all of europe' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They cannot casually set whatever prices whenever they feel like it.

      But they can take a shitty route, and then if you say "well fuck you let me out" you now have to pay for half a ride, which may well be worse than not having got into the cab at all.

      They cannot refuse service to certain classes of customer.

      They do it all the time.

      They are very likely to get in very big trouble if caught deliberately driving in circles to jack up the fare.

      Same with Uber, which actually tracks their route so they will actually be able to catch them.

      They are required to carry suitable insurance,

      Uber provides insurance while transporting a fare.

      be properly licensed to carry people for money,

      You're asserting that one of the things that licensing does is make sure people are licensed? No shit? Tell me something else equally fascinating, asshole.

      and must keep their vehicles in proper working order.

      Bull fucking shit. Every taxi I have ever been in has been a creaky pile, in fact most of them are surplus cop cars and they have been driven hard and every last good mile has been wrung out of them already.

      You don't notice the effects of these regulations - Until you ride in a taxi that doesn't have them.

      What I've noticed from riding in taxis is that none of these regulations worth worth one tenth of one fuck, at least here in the USA.

      Those regulations are there for a reason, Mr. Galt.

      Yes, to steal and to otherwise manipulate markets. They are not there for any valid reason, and that you believe there are marks you as a massive sucker. I see why you were too cowardly to log in and associate this tripe with an identity. Taxi licensing does none of the things you think it does, and claiming otherwise just proves that you're a boob.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Biassed much? This has jack shit to do with the "remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests".

    It has to do by following the rules. They keep saying that they are not a taxi company, while they are. They try to get around all different kinds of laws, especially labour laws and that is not a good thing to do in Europe.

    The thing I see is that when they follow the rules, they are NOT cheaper than the traditonal taxi companies.

    So what "remorseless competition" means is actually "illegal operation of a business". It is like calling Corleones way of selling insurance "remorseless competition of European family businesses".

    Uber is welcome if they play by the rules. They tried and did not make any money.

    Do understand that in many places you can just become a taxi-driver by getting the correct papers. Not everywhere there are fixed limits or medaillions.

    What the taxi companies should take away from this (and other places as well) is that people like the ease of use, especially in payment. People like the cashless society. There are options for taxi-drivers. I pay with my bank card if possible and that is something that is widely accepted.

    The App is also a nice thing and I could see a role for Uber (or others) there. Set up a system where multiple companies can join so you can get a taxi easily. e.g. something like http://www.pizza.be/en/ where people can order from many different places in Belgium.

    Do that on a European or even worldwide manner and you are golden.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Biassed much? This has jack shit to do with the "remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests".

      It has to do by following the rules.

      Actually it's probably less about that too. European cities are a lot more public transport/pedestrian friendly, so there is probably not as lucrative taxi industries to disrupt as say the US, where it's cars or nothing.

    2. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by jemmyw · · Score: 5, Informative

      This. My wife and I were chatting to an Aussie couple in Copenhagen who were asking where they could get a taxi. I was about to suggest Uber as an option, but my wife pointed out to them, it's a 20 minute walk and the streets are pedestrianised the whole way. And if they don't want to walk, there's a bus every 5 minutes.

      Not long ago getting public transport in a foreign location (even an English speaking one) could be a challenge. But with Google maps showing public transit it has become much more accessible.

      They still went and got a taxi from a local hotel AFAIK.

    3. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People like the cashless society

      Perhaps, though Europeans still use a lot of cash. I think the bigger issue (and what makes Uber appeal to me) is knowing that the driver isn't going to be able to pull any number of tricks on you in an attempt to shake you down for more money. My most recent regular taxi experience was in Italy, where I waited at a taxi stand for 30 mins desperately trying to flag down numerous empty taxis. A local finally told me you had to ring and order one. I got a hotel to do this (they had to wait on hold for 10 mins), figuring all the taxi's I'd seen must have been on order, until I got in the one that arrived five minutes later and realised there was a EUR 7 'radio taxi' charge for ordering one.

      It is these sorts of stupid tricks that really annoy people. I just want to be able to arrive somewhere, get a taxi, and not worry about the driver changing out my 50 note for a 5er, taking me the long way, or simply driving like an idiot and giving me no way to inform subsequent passengers that they are a dick.

      The big value of uber is that it fixes these issues. If they ditched the stupid Ayn Rand techno-liberalism stuff then they could probably replace all the world's taxis just by fixing these endemic problems with getting into a vehicle with a stranger.

    4. Re: Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      People like the cashless society.

      The state likes it because tax evasion is nearly impossible, and banks like it because it means more business for them, and they can rise prices and fees as they want, as there is no competition anymore (competiton between the banks? Nice joke).

      But people liking cashless? I doubt that. A cashless state is a surveillance state. A cashless state is one where when a bank goes bankrupt, you can't pay with anything anymore. In a cashless state you pay so that you can pay money.

    5. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to do by following the rules. They keep saying that they are not a taxi company, while they are. They try to get around all different kinds of laws, especially labour laws and that is not a good thing to do in Europe.

      There are different points of view:

      - You could say that the rules say what is right and what is wrong, and it has been agreed upon.

      - You could also say that the rules mention what the punishment is for different behaviors, and if the penalty is small enough, who cares what the rule is?

      If you are in the first group, don't be surprised if some people seem like assholes. If you are in the second group, don't be surprised if the rules change when everyone figures out what you are doing.

    6. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I just got back from a European holiday, 9 countries over 4 weeks. I organised and booked everything myself and can only remember taking a taxi once when we first arrived because I hadn't yet grasped the lay of the land. After that it was train or walking everywhere.
      Back home I'm Uber'ing every week because I live in the the suburbs and it's the only way to get home after a few drinks.

    7. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Rei · · Score: 1

      I live in Iceland, which has a crazy-low population density, yet still taxis are mainly only ever used by locals for getting home when out partying (aka drinking) when they live too far from downtown. You don't take taxis between cities or to the airport or anything like that.

      --
      Shiny New Australia.
    8. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think there is a fundamental difference between the way Europeans and USians think about companies. Europeans expect that they set the rules and companies operate within them, which is why they get upset at extreme tax avoidance that might technically be legal but goes against the intent of the law. USians seem to think that companies basically do what they want and there is little they can do about it, and good for them if they can get away with the kind of stuff Uber gets up to.

      Just compare consumer rights and employment rights between Europe and the US. It's clear that the balance of power is tipped far further towards citizens in the EU.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the biggest thing for me.

      I started travelling recently for business when I changed jobs in 2012. Since then, I spent two years hailing taxis ... every single one of them tried to cheat in one way or another. In Seattle, taxi drivers have a flat fee of $40 to take you from the airport to downtown; I never paid less than $45. In DC, taxis would say "Yes, I take cards" but when they get to your destination they refuse to take your card. In Texas they pretended their credit card machine was broken. When they give you a receipt (if they give you a receipt) the receipt is blank, and you're expected to write in whatever you feel like, so you can expense a different amount of money and pocket the change.

      Now I ride Uber and the payments aren't an issue. I even like chitchatting with the drivers.

    10. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have it backwards. Uber drivers are conning you. They're invariably not covered with you in the car. They may not fiddle the cost, but if you're in an accident, you are utterly fucked insurance-wise. Ask to see their insurance before getting in, they'll drive off there and then.

      You have a smart-phone, learn to use if you want a taxi. If so many are ignoring you, there's probably a good reason. You probably look like a yob or drunk, and they'd rather not bother.

    11. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Tom · · Score: 1, Informative

      You don't need Uber for any of this shit.

      Firstly, spending just one minute on Google to check the local taxi rules will help a lot.

      Secondly, taxi Apps such as MyTaxi also allow you to rate the driver.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Afty0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing I see is that when they follow the rules, they are NOT cheaper than the traditonal taxi companies.

      Uber is playing by the rules In London which, depending on who you ask, is part of Europe. That said, the city is considering bringing in new rules to prevent Uber from fairly competing with other types of taxi drivers.
      I take about 30 or 40 Ubers a year, and every SINGLE Uber driver I have had has been a licensed minicab operator - in other words the same driver I would be getting if I called a phone number and asked for a cab. These guys are experienced and licensed, and prefer Uber because they earn 5-10% more per hour with Uber than they do with their traditional employer.Did I mention that Uber charge 20-30% less than the traditional minicab firms saving me a bunch of money?

      So magically, Uber has chopped around 35% off the cost of private road transport in London that was previously going straight into the pockets of some already very wealthy people. Now the worker and the customer get that 35%. So I win, the driver wins, the only people who lose are the cab firm owners who have traditionally been raking the money in at our expense.

      If you compare Uber to the Black Cabs in London, things look even better - Uber are around half the price and offer better service, routes and accountability.

      Finally, people will moan about "Surge Pricing" - but that with Uber when surge pricing kicks in I can still GET an Uber, I just have to pay a bit more money for it. At the busier times of night, the times when Uber surge pricing kicks in, if I try ordering a regular cab I'm usually told I can't have one or that there is a wait of an hour or more. So Surge pricing gives me MORE options, even though I may decide not to use that option. With traditional providers, I'm walking the 7 miles home at 3am...

    13. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Teun · · Score: 1

      We spend a few days around NYE in Rome, what an amazing place.

      On the way in we booked via the internet a taxi from the airport to the hotel. The driver was waiting for us with a sign with our name.
      Distance about 45km/mins, price €50.-, and as typical a nice Merc.

      At the hotel we received city maps and they also sold tickets for public transport.
      €1.50 for a ticket and for 100 mins. from validating it at the station, this will get you anywhere into the city by train, subway, tram or bus.
      The return ticket is another €1.50.

      We did notice taxi stands at the various squares and important intersects in the city but never had a reason to take them.

      On the way home we again pre ordered a taxi but realistically we could have done the same by public transport for a fraction of the price and similar timing.
      It was only because of the luggage we took a taxi.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    14. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by dave420 · · Score: 0

      That's a bunch of opinion... For it to carry any weight you might want to consider backing it up with some facts...

    15. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Biassed much? This has jack shit to do with the "remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests".

      Well, let me offer a different perspective:

      When an American says "yarg, teh free markets" ... or some bullshit about how regulation is bad and the market will solve the problem ... or how unrestricted Capitalism will save us all ... the rest of the world thinks sod off you ignorant ass, we see what your bullshit theories do, and we disagree with them.

      Uber's bullshit "the rules don't apply to us because we're special" isn't accepted outside of circles of American Libertarians.

      The rest of the world thinks it's a crock of shit, and an utter lie by delusional people who thinks this concept of laissez-faire capitalism being shoved up our asses is the last thing we want.

      So, yes, in a lot of ways this "remorseless competition of the US industry" (it's not just tech) is not something we want. Precisely because it's a cancer which leaves carnage in its wake solely to benefit some nameless shareholders in another country.

      Why would we accept job losses so the bastards who run Uber can get rich at the expense of everyone else in the world?

      Sorry, but we're tired of transferring our jobs and money to international (*cough* American *cough*) interests who give nothing back and pretend like they don't owe society a damned thing.

      The rest of the world thinks Americans are a bunch of selfish, self-entitled bastards who feel it's their right to come in and take from the local economy and ship all the money elsewhere.

    16. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, though Europeans still use a lot of cash.

      As a European, I use my credit card mostly on taxis, not cash, nor mobile phone payments.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    17. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Malc · · Score: 2

      Not my experience with Uber in London. Several times now I've pissed around outside Hammersmith Broadway and Turnham Green trying to get one home late in the evening before giving up and catching a bus or the Tube. Another time on the way to Heathrow in the middle of a weekday afternoon the Tube had some trouble and I was already running late... 35 quid from Boston Manor (~10 miles)? No thanks, and unbelievably Addison Lee is much cheaper than that and arrived in the same time frame! Maybe you've got more money than the average person, but I don't relish Uber's surge pricing if a ton of taxi companies go out of business.

      You really must go out and also live in the middle of nowhere if there are no night buses that can't get you closer than seven miles! ;)

    18. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash really is not the norm contactless is now very much the norm

    19. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      I don't relish Uber's surge pricing if a ton of taxi companies go out of business.

      There'll be a lot of out of work taxi drivers too - who will be desperate to drive, reducing the times / locations that surge pricing occurs in. Plus, if it's so important, someone can launch a competitor to Uber that doesn't have surge pricing, and anyone who wants to can use them. Finally, if it's a real issue, book one in advance (it's what you had to do before, the presence of Uber hasn't made anything worse in that regard...)

      You really must go out and also live in the middle of nowhere if there are no night buses that can't get you closer than seven miles! ;)

      Fair point :)

    20. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make blanket statements, just because you are blinded in awe by Uber, you look stupid.

      "That said, the city is considering bringing in new rules to prevent Uber from fairly competing with other types of taxi drivers."

      Name these mysterious laws specifically targeting Uber, because you are talking rubbish.

      Your maths doesn't add up and you just pick random percentages out of the air to try to give yourself credibility:

      "prefer Uber because they earn 5-10% more per hour with Uber than"

      Taxi driving, unless you happen to know every street in London, should only ever be a minimum wage job. The only skill you need is to pass a driving test. Normal cabs or Uber, will only ever pay drivers this much because the pool of potential labourers is so large.

      "Now the worker and the customer get that 35%."

      Over a long term average, only the consumer will see any extra money, people don't tend to share money unnecessarily - it's not in our nature. Sure, drivers may see an extra tip every now and then but won't benefit much more.

      You, like many Uber supporters, fail to understand the bigger picture.

    21. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Afty0r · · Score: 2

      Which point(s) specifically are you addressing? I'll number them to help.

      1] Uber is playing by the rules in London
      2] All or most of Ubers drivers are licensed minicab operators
      3] Drivers make more money driving for Uber than they do driving for traditional minicab firms
      4] Uber charge 20-30% less than minicabs (at normal operating times)
      5] Ubers are cheaper than Black Cabs
      6] Ubers provide better customer service than Black Cabs
      7] Ubers Surge Pricing scheme means more cabs are available at peak times for people who really need them.

      Some are facts, some are claims which I can only back from personal experience (and that of many other Londoners I've discussed this with), and others are obvious with a little thought.

    22. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, I take cards" but when they get to your destination they refuse to take your card.
      Sucks to be them.
      Just tell them you have no cash and to drive you to an atm, or that you'll get money at your hotel.
      Then just never return.

    23. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by dave420 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Evidence for 1-7 will suffice. If you can only back it up with your limited personal experience, concede the point like a rational person.

    24. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxi = pick up people on the street.
      Cab = someone calls for a car.

      Been this way for decades. See the difference. Use google, its your friend.

    25. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Nadir · · Score: 1

      Seconded. We were in Lisbon two weeks ago. I installed a public transport routing app (CityMapper) and we got daily passes. We favoured the above-ground transport (buses, trams, etc) and we got to enjoy the city a lot more than we would have if we'd used the underground or a taxi. Walked a lot too.

      --
      --
      The world is divided in two categories:
      those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
    26. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The App is also a nice thing and I could see a role for Uber (or others) there. Set up a system where multiple companies can join so you can get a taxi easily. e.g. something like http://www.pizza.be/en/ [pizza.be] where people can order from many different places in Belgium.

      Do that on a European or even worldwide manner and you are golden.

      This idea has been tried many times in the US (ever since the iPhone became popular)

      In the US, these types of apps simply don't work reliably enough in highly populated areas and during peak hours. You'll order a taxi, but the taxi won't show up. That's because taxis don't have a strong enough incentive to honor their commitment. Since they're taxis, they can commit to picking someone up, but if they see someone else on the road halfway to their pickup, or if they hear of a more lucrative pick up on their radio, they'll go pick up that other person instead.

      Many times, this doesn't even need to be a straight lie, the taxi drivers will just tell themselves, that other person can just wait a little bit more while I take care care of this other customer right now. Or they'll tell themselves, there is enough wiggle room for me to squeeze one more client, especially if I can find someone to pick up who needs to go to the location near where my other pick up will be. All this optimization is great for the taxi drivers, but it's not great for the customers.

      Uber, on the other hand, doesn't work that way (except for UberPool where the customer explicitly chooses that option to be more flexible in exchange for an upfront discount). But with Uber, if you order a normal Uber ride (and not UberPool), the system is first-in and first-out (just like with just-in-time lean manufacturing, if you don't mind me using the analogy). Once a Uber driver accepts the offer of a customer, that driver can no longer see other potential pick ups he can make on the map (the map just won't show him that information). Also, that Uber driver doesn't have competing offers streaming in from a dispatch center over the radio, or via telephone or text, or just via driving (since Uber is not allowed to pick up people who flags down a driver from a sidewalk). In addition to that, the customer is even reassured that the Uber car is on its way (without even asking), since as soon a driver accepts his/her offer, the customer sees the Uber car moving in real-time towards the pick-up location he suggested.

      In other words, Uber is offering a service that taxi services simply can not offer (without the taxi services giving up on some of the advantages they have of having multiples ways of getting customers, which will never happen). Also, the barrier to entry for Uber drivers is much lower. For most of them, they can just use their existing car and just start driving for Uber only for a few hours each month (just to see what it's like). That's a very attractive proposition for potential drivers. Many of those potential drivers may already have full time jobs, part time jobs, or other serious commitments like kids to take care when they're not in day care or in school.

    27. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      You mean like uber's surge pricing?

    28. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "to take an uber", oh do f**k off

      If there's any justice it will come to mean exactly what it sounds like.

    29. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by dj245 · · Score: 1

      This. My wife and I were chatting to an Aussie couple in Copenhagen who were asking where they could get a taxi. I was about to suggest Uber as an option, but my wife pointed out to them, it's a 20 minute walk and the streets are pedestrianised the whole way. And if they don't want to walk, there's a bus every 5 minutes.

      Not long ago getting public transport in a foreign location (even an English speaking one) could be a challenge. But with Google maps showing public transit it has become much more accessible.

      They still went and got a taxi from a local hotel AFAIK.

      Determining a public transportation route that will work has never been a problem for me, in any country. There are almost always maps, signage, designated waiting areas, etc. Instructions for this are built into almost all public transportation systems, and most public transportation systems are similar in respect to routing.

      Buying the ticket, the correct ticket, and managing the transaction are where I have experienced problems when visiting somewhere new. Every single country and city is different in that respect. The most frustrating problem is when there are only certain ticketing machines that accept credit cards. Systems which have multiple different possible single-use tickets you could purchase, with different costs and different advantages/drawbacks, are the worst. Payment and ticketing at the biggest problems I see with tourists using public transportation. Maps are easy for people to understand. Complicated ticketing systems are much harder.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    30. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Ticketing is, indeed, the hardest part.

      In some countries it's simple. The bus looks like it's 25 years old, and the driver (or conductor) takes cash. This worked for me in Vietnam, Georgia, Albania and Ecuador. (Only Vietnam had understandable maps and signage, and then only for the trains.)

      In London, you can pay with any contactless debit or credit card (or phone). It's not especially clear what the cost will be, unless you look it up on a website or in the guide book. There's a disadvantage as some foreign banks charge per foreign transaction, but it certainly makes things simpler.

    31. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by xaxa · · Score: 1

      "That said, the city is considering bringing in new rules to prevent Uber from fairly competing with other types of taxi drivers."

      Name these mysterious laws specifically targeting Uber, because you are talking rubbish.

      There's a proposal that a booked car may not arrive within 5 minutes of the booking, to keep the black cab's 'instant' appeal.

    32. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the balance of power is tipped far further towards citizens in the EU.

      Unless you are a "citizen" who wants to use Uber and doesn't want the tyrannical EU government butting into your life or preventing two adults from exchanging a certain amount of money for a certain amount of labor.

    33. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by shilly · · Score: 1

      What a pile of pants.

      Uber is *not* playing by the rules, and this is to the detriment of passengers.

      The rules are:
      - if you want to ply for hire and provide an unmetered service, you have to give customers a firm price in advance so you can't gouge them en route, you have to provide a pre-booking facility. Customers benefit from a cheap known price and some reasonable degree of certainty that you'll be there when you say you will.
      - if you want to ply for hire, you have to provide a metered service so customers can't be gouged en route, you have to meet high standards of knowledge of London's streets and all the other additional requirements of hackney carriage licensing, including using a hackney cab with all its attendant benefits for passengers (e.g. tight turning circle, seating five so they can speak to each other, accessibility features for the disabled etc). Customers benefit from a regulated price, high availability of cabs throughout central London, the added speed from using bus lanes, and the ability to give someone vague directions and still have them get you there ("it's next to that church near City Hall")

      Uber are the worst of both worlds for passengers: they don't provide a pre-booking facility, won't give a firm price, and in practice they ply for hire without providing drivers or cars that meet the standards of hackney carriage licensing. Plus, you cannot just call the driver to discuss how to find each other, which is really fucking irritating.

      They're cheap the way a cheap sausage is cheap.

    34. Re: Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That dumb facist bitch is irrelevant in all ways.

    35. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the taxi companies should take away from this (and other places as well) is that people like the ease of use, especially in payment.

      What I also like more is reliability. Taxi's are extremely unreliable in some areas; uber has an app that is updated in real time showing you pretty accurately where your driver is and how long it takes to get to you.

      Where I used to live, taxi's were routinely 2-3 hours late even if I booked one that morning, a day in advance, or whenever. I even had some taxi's not show up at all. And this is across several cab companies. I later found from a cabbie that back in the 80's and 90's that part of town was rather rough. It wasn't bad anymore, but many cabbies have been doing this for a long time and absolutely refused to go into that part of town. The cab companies had no means to force a cabbie to take a particular fair, or if they did there were seemingly no repercussions for failure to do so. So cabs never showed up on time, if at all. Uber showed up when requested always (if they didn't, I suspect the driver would have to answer to corporate, or at least would get a bad rating in the app).

    36. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      They're invariably not covered with you in the car.

      100% false, this issue was quickly fixed by Uber purchasing a policy to cover their drivers while they were working.

      The remaining issue is who's insurance is responsible when the driver doesn't have passengers, but is seeking clients. In between was which insurance covered when the driver was going towards pickup.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    37. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      - if you want to ply for hire and provide an unmetered service, you have to give customers a firm price in advance so you can't gouge them en route, you have to provide a pre-booking facility. Customers benefit from a cheap known price and some reasonable degree of certainty that you'll be there when you say you will.

      Here, you must be complaining about existing mini-cabs, because Uber solves this problem quite nicely.

      Uber gives you a "firm" range of what you will have to pay. In other words, it won't charge you more than the upper range it gave you. That is in itself fantastic. When I stayed in London, I can't tell you the number of times mini-cab drivers have lied to me about the final price (or lied to me about not having enough change).

      If London mini-cab drivers have never lied to you, then either you've never taken mini-cabs, or you're lying.

    38. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The big value of uber is that it fixes these issues. If they ditched the stupid Ayn Rand techno-liberalism stuff then they could probably replace all the world's taxis just by fixing these endemic problems with getting into a vehicle with a stranger.

      The big delusion is that Uber wants to fix these issues.

      Uber requires the status quo to operate. They need the legitimate taxi industry to incur the much larger overheads they currently do whilst Uber ignores them. If the playing field was levelled tomorrow, Uber would see a flood of competition that would drown them. Uber isn't working to make things better, the "stupid Ayn Rand techno-liberalism" propaganda is just that, propaganda. Uber needs things to remain the same to survive... which it's not doing a good job of as it is, losing $100 million a quarter.

      However if the playing feild was lowered to Uber's level, we'd also see a race to the bottom and then you'll see why your ancestors implemented taxi regulations to begin with.

      If you think a regulated taxi industry is bad... Go live somewhere where there isn't one. Taxi gangs literally operate like mafias, enforcing turf and shaking down people on the street. In some places they prevent public transport systems by literally dragging the drivers out of the buses and beating them in broad daylight. I've seen what happens when your "fixes" are applied to the taxi industry, it's not pretty.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    39. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is the biggest thing for me.

      I started travelling recently for business when I changed jobs in 2012. Since then, I spent two years hailing taxis ... every single one of them tried to cheat in one way or another. In Seattle, taxi drivers have a flat fee of $40 to take you from the airport to downtown; I never paid less than $45. In DC, taxis would say "Yes, I take cards" but when they get to your destination they refuse to take your card. In Texas they pretended their credit card machine was broken. When they give you a receipt (if they give you a receipt) the receipt is blank, and you're expected to write in whatever you feel like, so you can expense a different amount of money and pocket the change.

      Now I ride Uber and the payments aren't an issue. I even like chitchatting with the drivers.

      You must have the word "mark" tattooed to your forehead.

      I've been travelling the world since 2002 and this includes living in Thailand and the Phillippines. If taxi's in western countries are scamming you, they will tear you to shreds in South East Asia. I've travelled extensively in the US and was never ripped off by a taxi driver. Maybe it's because I dont treat them like shit. Even in SE Asia, if you get caught out by a scamming Tuk Tuk driver more than once, you aren't smart enough to travel, their scams are easy to spot (no I dont want to go to your "brothers" gold shop).

      And here's the harsh reality for you. The Uber situation wont last and soon they'll be the ones scamming you because they aren't even making minimum wage. You'll end up with the worst of the worst, drivers no-one else will hire because no-one else will work for the pittance Uber offers. Yep, that's what comes out of your race to the bottom.

      To be honest, I dont get why people in the US are complaining, your taxis are relatively cheap compared to other western countries. But I guess it'll take a situation like Phuket in the US to teach you the hard way why your ancestors put in taxi regulations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    40. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1] London is quite unique, in that regard.
      2] It's not hard to get a mini-cab license
      3] No wonder
      4] No wonder
      5] Anything is cheaper than Black Cabs. Talk to any cabbie about how easy it is to get an all London Black Cab(green sticker) license
      6] Feedback has that feature
      7] The surge price is poorly implemented geographically. Downtown Jersey City, NJ it's about 10 steps from surge to regular.

    41. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by shilly · · Score: 1

      I've lived in London since 1995, and minicab drivers have never lied to me, and I've taken a shit-load of them in that time.

      For a start, in London you don't agree the price with the driver, you agree it on the phone with the head office or you agree it in the local office if you're a walk-in. So what's to discuss with the driver? And how does a lie like that even work? "Oooh, tricked you, I said it was a tenner and it's actually fifteen quid!" "Er, well I agreed to a tenner, not 15 quid, so I'm paying a tenner".

      As for your other complaints: the vast majority of cab firms now allow you to pay online with a card, so you don't have to argue about cabbies not having enough change.

      I notice you only picked out one aspect of what I wrote about in the passage you quoted, by the way. I also highlighted that minicabs are required to be pre-bookable. Uber chooses to ignore this requirement, which was by itself the reason I gave up on using them. When I need to get my son to a football match at 9.30 on a Sunday morning from our house in the London suburbs, I want to be sure the cab will be there at 9.15. Uber are completely unreliable for this, because funnily enough, there's not much liquidity of supply at 9am on a Sunday in zone 3.

      I stand by what I said: Uber don't offer firm pricing, they don't offer regulated metered pricing, they don't offer pre-bookability, they don't meet the behavioural regulations that benefit passengers (e.g. cab-rank obligation to carry regardless of destination, public liability insurance), nor the vehicle requirements (e.g. turning circle), nor the driver requirements (e.g. enhanced DBS check, the Knowledge). They are a crap mix of the least beneficial aspects of minicabs and taxis, operating in the interests of their investors much more than their passengers. But they are -- for now, and when surge pricing isn't switched on -- cheap, and they are reasonably plentiful. So they're reasonably popular.

    42. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by ToddInSF · · Score: 2

      Why do you put citizen in quotes ?

      The word "Tyrannical" does not mean what you think it does.

      Your right to exploit people starts and ends with what the government will permit you to get away with. A lot of people in the US get REALLY angry when their ability to take advantage of people is hindered. You're just going to have to get over that, as people decide to make government work for them, instead of your greedy and exploitative cronies.

    43. Re: Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In some countries, people think the government is working for them, which is not nearly as popular an attitude in the US. I'd rather not be surveilled all the time because I think there's a reasonable chance it will be used against me sometime, either by the government or someone who bought the data. They may also have protections of some sort in case the bank goes bankrupt

      One big advantage of a cashless society is that it reduces certain forms of crime. Armed robbery is much less profitable if I'm carrying credit cards but no cash. It is possible to coerce me to go around town getting cash advances and buying things, but that's quite risky and adds additional crimes and additional sentencing. (I have other ways to deal with white-collar crime, and the big advantage of being bilked by an "identity thief" is that it isn't physically dangerous or terrifying.) Another is that you're not going to get too little cash out of the machine for your weekend, because you transfer it at any place and any time.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you don't have any evidence otherwise, then you are a hypocrite.

    45. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by shallot · · Score: 1

      It seems there's a big disconnect between the two continents in how people look at taxis or more generally road transport in urban settlements. There are large cities in the US that simply don't have widespread sidewalks, I recently read about Oklahoma City slowly dealing with that problem. In Europe OTOH they're pretty much ubiquitous. When you literally don't have a safe walking route to a place, your take on taxis has to be significantly different from someone who does.

    46. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've visited many small cities in the US, and many do not have sidewalks. It's a pain tramping over verges. And you get odd things, like an overpass with a sidewalk half way across, so you need to be careful of the traffic over the second half.

      I lived in a city in CA with good sidewalks, and it was less than 10 minutes from our house to the center of town. We walked in all the time with our kids, but I hardly ever saw other people walking around. Our neighbour would take her dogs for a long walk, bring them back to her house, get in the car and drive to town. But suggest that she could walk to town instead - blank stare.

      There was a playground about 1 mile from our house that my wife would take our kids to often, walking. We had friends with kids the same age whose house was about 5 minutes walk from the playground - and they would DRIVE every time! It's madness, it is as if American's have forgotten that walking is a method of transportation. Having a car with you can be a pain, you have to get everyone in and out, find parking, put up with boiling temperatures if you leave it in the sun, etc etc.

    47. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike from Chicago. Well said. I agree 100%.

    48. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber has $1,000,000 dollars worth of commercial insurance when ever a rider is in the car anywhere in the US. Ask for my policy and I will show it to you..UBER ON !!!

    49. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by euroq · · Score: 1

      That was a lot of vitriol. Calm down!

      The conversation is about Uber and how it's a magnitude better than taxi services. It is, hands down. That's why people are taking them instead of taxis. Nobody gives a shit about shareholders and American corporations when they're trying to get an affordable ride home quickly.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    50. Re:Nothing to do with American Tech Industry by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Uber is playing by the rules In London

      Does London require taxis to pick up people regardless of location or neighborhood and uber is following those rules?

      In most US cities, taxi drivers cannot ignore requests for a ride just because it is out of the way, or a person they don't like (in theory). If you are a disabled person on the outskirts of town, you can count on a taxi showing up. Uber, not so much. Uber drivers can ignore requests.

      The reason cities give monopolies to taxi services, is because the city makes the taxi's act like an extension of public transit. They have to serve everyone. Not just hang out downtown in the lucrative fast turn around market.

  6. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A socialist pipedream in which college education is free.*

    Good luck paying off your college loans, and your children's college loans, suckers.
    ____
    *Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.

  7. I root for Uber in Bucharest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think they are not succeeding in countries with well established and (maybe) good quality taxi services. This is not the case for Bucharest. Here the taxi drivers are guys with no education that would not get a job otherwise. They always expect tip and can become violent if this is not provided (especially to women). They smoke even if you ask for a non smoking cab and some of their cars are pitiful (I don't expect leather but I want the heating to work). Uber imposes some rules on cars and you can rate drivers (and the rating is actually used by Uber as opposed to taxi firms). This makes their drivers act nicer, the cars are better and the whole experience is better. And not having to deal with cash money and tip is cool also.

    1. Re: I root for Uber in Bucharest by angulion · · Score: 1

      From Finland. Here taxi drivers are educated in their profession, cars less than 5 years old and smoking in the car does not exist. Oh and we usually never tip.

    2. Re: I root for Uber in Bucharest by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      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.

  8. chat as though yOUR moms are watching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    many are you know the whole wwworld is watching.... progress

  9. Well regulated or Entrenched Operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber is going to have troubles from the entrenched rent seekers rather than customers in protectionist markets like Paris or NYC.
    Uber is going to have troubles from customers rather than existing ride services in well run markets like London or Frankfort.
    It's a sliding scale of course and the exact mechanism of resistance will differ place to place, but interesting to watch all the same.

    1. Re:Well regulated or Entrenched Operators by shilly · · Score: 1

      Spot on!

  10. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > You're holding humanity back [...]

    If Uber is the idea of progress you have, then yes, glad to hold humanity back. You can keep your progress all to yourself.

    (And I'm talking to *you* personally. Trying to make this as an US vs Europe thing is stupid, at best).

  11. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time we Europeans decided to ruthlessly expand our business interests without regard for human live, we sailed across the ocean and basically killed everybody living on the other side. Are you sure you want us to give up that socialist pipedream to set sail again?

  12. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Sique · · Score: 0

    Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Someone invests in something to get the money back due to increased revenue? I don't see the problem. Please elaborate!

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  13. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Teun · · Score: 1

    You take comparable issues, people not following rules and the reaction by the authorities is also similar, they will try to prevent a recurrence.

    So what did you want to say?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  14. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Everyone must respect the rules."

    Meanwhile, a mob of 1,000 men sexually assault over 100 women on NYE in public and the authorities are mostly dithering about teaching said immigrants to respect the rules.

    So please, spare us the bullshit about how Germans respect the rules. What we see is a Germany that on rules strains gnats while swallowing camels.

    There wasn't a mob of 1000 men. There were a lot of drunks and small groups taking advantage of the anonymity inbetween. Small groups harassing people (not only women btw) sexually to give another one a chance to pickpocket is nothing new. The news is that they upped their operation this NYE and we have lots of problems prosecuting them, because you have to prove who of them did what. If you can't pinpoint the culprit for each action you have to let them all go. You can't sentence them as a group (yet). Another problem is that you have one account versus many which leads to additional problems in court.

  15. Its all about lowering standards for some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber does not make the people at the bottom rich. Its no different or better then what a traditional cab company does. In fact, its worse in many ways. We have already seen the playing field split between what Uber is required to do and what cab companies are required. No organized system, no uniform system of management, no core interest in playing by the rules. At some point you have to ask if Uber is positive or just another example of chaos.
    Everyone I have talked to who has used Uber many times has never had a constant level of service. Its always been hit or miss. I am all for a free market and let the chip fall where they will. But let's play them on equal terms against your competition. I think Uber will fail when they have to do this.

    1. Re:Its all about lowering standards for some by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's what I see.. There is obviously a problem with the widening wealth gap. Why are we ushering in companies like Uber and calling it progress? At least the 'monopolistic' taxi industry provides a living wage. We can't get rid of all our living wage jobs and then complain there are no jobs, and I for one want jobs for everyone. Those taxi drivers are the ones we should be protecting and defending if we want our society to work and we're shitting all over them. Maybe they're not perfect, but if you see the forest for the trees, they're more perfect then Uber.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Its all about lowering standards for some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally agree with you. But the taxi drivers & companies need to clean up their act. I don't want to arrive at the train station or airport in Bucharest and to pay 3-10 times the ride's cost just because the taxi drivers don't want to use meters ... you don't want to pay, good luck reaching your destination on a cold winter night (and I'm not exaggerating this at all). A couple of years ago me & my wife took a cab to a club. We were talking and I did not notice that the meter was not running. When we reached the club he asked for a lot more money than what the ride was worth. I payed him a bit more than what I knew it should have costed but not the amount he was asking. We almost got in a fight ... luckily the club's bouncers stepped in.
      So yeah ... I don't want perfect but I want decent. Then the taxi industry would deserve protection and defending by the public, the kind of stuff the article mentioned happening in Germany.

  16. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Forcing people into dept so they can get an education. This is just another scheme by the rich to keep the poor down.

  17. Uber will be welcome in Germany... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    once you guys learn the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of "über".

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Uber will be welcome in Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and then change it to something else.

    2. Re:Uber will be welcome in Germany... by johanw · · Score: 1

      "Deutschland über alles" again?

    3. Re:Uber will be welcome in Germany... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just so you don't go make a fool of yourself in future, the meaning of that is "Consider yourself German before you consider yourself from one of the constituent states/cities/city-states that merged to become Germany", not "Germany is better than everyone else".

    4. Re:Uber will be welcome in Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, of course, but "über alles in der Welt" has a misleading ring to it...

    5. Re:Uber will be welcome in Germany... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No, it means "Over". Always has. And it rhymes with Ubermensch, or the mythic Aryan Superhero crushing all lesser peoples beneath his boot, his copy of Mein Kampf in hand.

      The ones to whom laws do not apply, for they are "over" the rest.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  18. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know I go back to the feeling of what American companies used to be and think "what ever happened?".

    They've gone from Capitalism to Corporatism we all know this, but now its gone even further. It's just arbitrary Authoritarianism now.

    But Uber is not the Only company like this, if it's bank backed out of Wall St then it has no legal concerns whatsoever and battling the respective countries' legal system simply becomes a cost of doing business.

    But no shame greater than the mindless sheep that allow this to happen. The premise that "If you were in the same position you'd do it" motive shouldn't be case. How sad.

  19. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Someone invests in something to get the money back due to increased revenue? I don't see the problem. Please elaborate!

    The problem is that not everyone is in equal opportunity to invest. To some families/individuals, the cost of college in the US is trivial. To others, it's hugely prohibitive. This imparts a bias in which it's far easier for a certain segment of the population to pay for college than another (much larger) segment, which discourages the latter from attending college, which discourages a large portion of those who would actually be good at a particular career from getting the background and degree that they need to pursue it - leading to said positions being filled by less qualified individuals who simply came from personal (or more often, family) backgrounds with more money.

    That's not to say that individuals from poor families can't reach success - far from it. But in this regard money is like the difficulty setting on a video game. Sure, someone who's really skilled may still beat it on the hardest setting, while someone who is lousy at the game may still lose on the easiest. But playing the game at a particular difficulty setting is going to skew the percentage of people who succeed at it. The "high scores" - the job market - is based around those who won the game without regard to what sort of difficulty setting they played at, and so naturally it's going to be skewed toward those who played at easier difficulty settings, rather than being an accurate list of who is really best at the game.

    Beyond the base economic issues of wanting your nation's workers to be able to reach their maximum potential rather than having potentially brilliant scientists and engineers working retail, there's also the issue of happiness. Because people tend to work harder at jobs that they enjoy. But if someone gets locked into a particular career path that they don't enjoy or aren't good at, high costs of tuition (as well as a lack of a "safety net", such as universal healthcare) make a career change a hugely, often prohibitively costly endeavour. Where tuition is cheap and a safety net stronger, people who realize that they've headed down the wrong career path are much more likely to switch career paths and find one that they actually do enjoy and are good at, rather than being unhappy and unproductive for decades in the workforce.

    Safety nets and universal tuition do have a cost, don't get me wrong. But having workers in the wrong career and not having people meet their potential has an even bigger cost.

    --
    Shiny New Australia.
  20. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by geekmux · · Score: 2

    *Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.

    OK, I've heard of a lot of statements regarding our college graduates, but this bullshit takes the cake.

    Why? Well because technically you need a fucking job in order to actually pay taxes on it.

  21. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Rei · · Score: 1

    This never would have happened if they had just kept an arm's length apart ;)

    --
    Shiny New Australia.
  22. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In principle I do agree, but you know what? I don't hate those companies. I do hate the politicians, who are being paid to counterbalance that craze and instead are either too gullible and have drank the Kool Aid or too corrupt and are having their palms greased. Most probably both of that.

    They are the real traitors.

  23. It's Frankfurt, with a "u" and this isn't anti-US. by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is about Uber pissing all over labour and transport regulations and getting in serious trouble because of that. ...
    And competing against dependable and solid public transport networks.
    Well, OK, scratch that ... sort-of-dependable here in Düsseldorf.
    If only Rheinbahn could sync their online, offline and station timetables, that would be a huge plus ... idiots.

    There's also a cottage industry of ride-sharing going on in Germany for quite some time now (roughly a decade) with platforms such as mitfahrgelegenheit.de or blahblahcar.de covering some interesting parts of the market that Uber tries to target. In terms of ride-sharing Uber is actually quite late in the game by German standards.

    As for transportation and labour laws: I took a taxi just this moring because I'd've been late with the tram & bike combo I usually use. The ride took approx. 16 minutes and costed 22 euros, tip included. The car was a Mercedes (almost all Taxis are Mercedes in Germany), the drive has to have a special training and "Personentransport" (it's what you think it is) drivers licence, he gets paid - not very big but he can live - and is tied in to healthcare and all the other stuff every citizen enjoys in Germany.

    Bottom line: With public transport and the occasional luxurious taxi ride when time is short I see not that much of a market for Uber. And as for them getting legal flak for not following regulations - that's a thing I'm quite OK with.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  24. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The state makes an investment in educating it's population and it gets increased revenue from having a workforce that isn't made up of unskilled cretins. Crippling GDP is a pretty stupid way to save money.

  25. Which "interests" are being supported? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wonder, is their retreat due to a genuine disinterest by the populations of those countries or simply by anti-competitive practices by those countries "established interests"/governments? It almost sounds like at least in UberPops case that the general public was happy to use the service but the taxi companies/drivers "dissatisfaction" resulted in blocking traffic, government lobbying, destroying Uber cars and attacking their drivers. No doubt that Uber is a company that is more than anything interested in profits, but why people are ascribing different motivations to various established taxi companies across the globe is beyond me. Let them all provide their service and allow the public to decide which deserves to survive.

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/...

    1. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      Good work Frankfurt. Ich bin ein Frankfurter!

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    2. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      At least you're not ein Wiener.

    3. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      They did. You failed to read the comments from the public. Piss off.

    4. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "by anti-competitive practices by those countries "established interests"/governments?"

      As opposed to the anticompetitive practices of uber whereby they just ignore any laws that they don't like while pleading that they're not a duck despite looking, sounding and smelling like a duck. Pretty much everywhere where they've had to compete on even terms they're a bit player or they failed. You don't want a company like this getting traction and becoming a monopoly.

    5. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Please explain how Uber could ever be a monopoly. If you think it's that hard to write a smartphone app, then you're on the wrong site.

    6. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were "ein Wiener", you'd be living in Wien (Vienna), one of the nicest cities on the planet.

    7. Re:Which "interests" are being supported? by euroq · · Score: 1

      Lyft is a solid competitor that is beating Uber in many American markets such as Atlanta, GA. There is also Sidecar, which I used for a whole year, but they failed. So, yeah, there is some healthy competitiveness going on in the free market.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  26. european perspective by Tom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, poor "innovators".

    Look, here is what really happened:

    We have existing taxi services that are actually quite good and regulated to the advantage of customers (for example, by law a taxi cannot refuse to drive you just because it's close by and he would prefer to wait for a higher fare customer).
    My hometown, Hamburg, is mentioned, and for all my life my experience with taxis there is that it is easy to get one, they are clean, drivers speak good german and know the roads, fares are transparent and fair and for years before Uber appeared, there were already Apps that allowed you to order a taxi to your current location with a few clicks.

    I don't know the situation in the USA, but over here not many people even saw the need for something like Uber. If you "disrupt" something that works reasonably well, you are acting destructively.

    Maybe Uber is cheaper, but it is not as transparent or fair with its various surcharges and basically auction system. I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows? If you want cheap, most of Europe has pretty good public transport (from my house to the airport: just over 3â and only 10 minutes longer than by taxi).

    And then Uber came in with arrogance and hubris and basically said "fuck you all" not just to the taxi companies but also to regulators, police and the law. Sorry, but we here don't share the american "all government is the evil spawn of Satan" attitude. Sure we bitch about tax laws and we think our politicians are corrupt, incompetent imbeciles, but we also value the rule of law and wouldn't want to live in the wild west. We don't think companies and people who break the rules are innovators, we think they are assholes.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:european perspective by Tom · · Score: 1

      And fuck /. and it's UTF support. That âÂis, of course, a Euro symbol - €

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:european perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taxi service in the US really does suck. You either hail a taxi and hope it takes you, or call for one and wait a good half-hour for it to show up. Drivers are almost all immigrants who can barely speak english, meaning you often have trouble getting them to understand your destination. They charge a lot, have tons of additional fees for random things, will take very inneficient paths, and often refuse cards.

    3. Re:european perspective by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL - yeah sure they do.

    4. Re:european perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckers charge 40 euros for a 15 minute trip to the airport in Amsterdam. The taxi companies' monopolies can rot in hell for all I care (an expat in Amsterdam).

    5. Re:european perspective by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I don't know the situation in the USA,

      I do. I can explain why it's different here. Outside of really big US downtown areas, you will wait a long time for the taxi and even short trips are expensive. Also, US taxis often (maybe always - not sure as I don't use taxis much) have meters that run on time in the car, not only just for distance. So if you are sitting in the taxi at a long red light (some intersections can easily take over 2 minutes to change to green), your cost is going up all the time even though you aren't moving. This is part of why they are so expensive here.

    6. Re:european perspective by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      It's true the lack of Slashdot UTF support is incredibly annoying, but there is a preview button on posts. You're even forced to click it before submitting.

    7. Re:european perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on who made the rules, we also see them as criminals.

    8. Re:european perspective by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The shows the symbol correctly. I expect Tom knows, he's user number 822.

      Shows correctly in the preview: €.

    9. Re:european perspective by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's not a pricing problem.

      Taxi driver is standing/cruising in a central-city party location. You live nearby, but most people come from the outskirts. He wants those customers, because they give him one high-price trip. For you, he will get the same money by hour, but he has to come back and look for the next customer. It's more convenient for him to pick long-distance customers.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:european perspective by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Take the train instead. A few euros. That's why it's there :)

    11. Re:european perspective by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      " I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows?" Thats nice you want that. What I want is to have the choice between paying 15 or 30 for Uber, or 20 for your taxi. I like choices. I'm sorry you don't, but what you want isn't any more important than what I want. I don't even use Uber, but obviously there is a market for it because people use it regularly, even though it is not "what you want".

    12. Re:european perspective by Tom · · Score: 1

      I gave a perspective, including reasons why Uber failed in Europe. This is one of them, because many (certainly not all, but many) europeans think like that. We are more calm than americans or russians or arabs, more interested in a good life without nasty surprises, even if it means smaller chances in the lottery that makes one in every 50 million people rich.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:european perspective by euroq · · Score: 1

      > by law a taxi cannot refuse to drive you just because it's close by and he would prefer to wait for a higher fare customer

      I've been asked to get out of a taxi because of this, even though it's not legal. With Uber, they're not allowed and it's tracked by a system unlike anonymous taxi drivers.

      > If you "disrupt" something that works reasonably well, you are acting destructively.

      They didn't actively do anything to anyone. They just started providing a new service. Nobody has to use them. They passed no laws. They didn't talk to any other taxi drivers. In this passive sense, they are only improving something that already worked reasonably well.

      > Maybe Uber is cheaper, but it is not as transparent or fair with its various surcharges and basically auction system. I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows?

      You don't understand how it works. There's no chance involved. The prices are precise by time and distance. It may be "chance" in the sense that if you've never taken a ride in that distance you may not know, but the same thing would happen with a taxi. You know about surge pricing up front. If there is a "x2.3" surge price, you actually have to type the numbers "23" into your phone before a request goes through. And you're not admitting the hard truth which all people who use taxis have to deal with (god forbid you had to use one on New Year's Eve!). If there really is a surge in demand, don't bet on a taxi arriving after calling dispatch. I've dealt with this about 20 times. I literally drove once while pretty drunk just because I couldn't get the taxi. NEVER would happen if the taxi companies provided the service Uber does. On a final side note, Uber provides a fixed-price from airports in many cities as well.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  27. I call by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

    ... what a complete and utter bullshit: "... where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark"
    Maybe it's more that in Europe countries have not been taken over by commerce to the degree that has happened in the US. Maybe that NY Times reporter baby could buy a passport and take time to visit some European countries once.
    Indeed, when you want to do a business in a country, you obey simple rules, nothing more, apparently Uber has issues with that, and perhaps that attitude is typically American, who knows.
    That arrogant crap company is doing the same here in Indonesia; simply ignore laws and court orders, hoping they can strong arm local and national governments into compliance, disgusting!

    1. Re:I call by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's more that in Europe countries have not been taken over by commerce to the degree that has happened in the US.

      If that were true, then your taxi companies would not have succeeded in purchasing your minds so effectively that you champion your own lack of freedom at every turn.

      Indeed, when you want to do a business in a country, you obey simple rules,

      Those laws are not only not simple in their effect, they are anticompetitive.

      you obey simple rules, nothing more, apparently Uber has issues with that, and perhaps that attitude is typically American, who knows.

      Perhaps it is. Don't be too proud of your willingness to follow the party line and maintain the status quo. We've seen what that looks like in Europe, and it is not pretty. There are flags, and marching, and jackboots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I call by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Listen Potsy, ubber is violating the laws. Pure and simple. If they were competing like everyone else, then there would be not problem. But they don't want to, they want to be treated specially. Fuck off as-hole.

    3. Re:I call by dave420 · · Score: 2

      You seem to be thinking the state of taxis in western Europe is similar to that in the US. In great swathes of Europe there are countries being targeted by Uber, which have great taxi services. People like the taxis - they are prompt, cheap, well maintained, and driven by trained professionals. Uber comes along and starts ignoring the rules, claiming "oh we do ride sharing, not taxis!" seemingly unaware of the massive popularity of ride sharing across Europe, and that said popularity means no-one believes their claims. Uber threatening a system which the people like is nothing to welcome. The rules work, and people like them. They are not competitive, at least no more than someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer must get professional accreditation to be able to practice.

      Don't jump to conclusions, and don't wander off talking about jackboots - if you want to convince a European that you have a good argument, that is the best way to have people laugh at and ignore you.

    4. Re:I call by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      "countries being targeted by Uber, which have great taxi services."

      Then Uber should quickly wither and die in those areas without the need for heavy handed tactics (lawsuits, arrests, confiscations, destruction of private property, mass economic sabotage, etc). I'm guessing that Uber and other similar apps generally target areas where people are dissatisfied with the available services. Moving into a city/region where people are already satisfied with the services would be kind of like building an ice cream shop on the same block as another ice cream shop with better prices, quicker service and better ice cream, your shop is going to go belly up in pretty short order.

    5. Re:I call by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That is precisely what's happening. The laws passed are just guarding the work society has put in to creating a functioning taxi system. They don't want it to be corrupted or usurped by some fly-by-night company, as they know it's an essential part of public transport, and something people and jobs depend on.

    6. Re:I call by euroq · · Score: 1

      Uber threatening a system which the people like is nothing to welcome.

      I don't understand the Europeans who dislike Uber and get bent out of shape by it in comparison to their already existing taxis that they're perfectly happy with. If Europeans don't want to use Uber, then they don't have to use it! It's simple; don't use them, let their business fail, and BAM, they'll be gone. It's not like they're coming along and forcing people to download the app.

      They are not competitive, at least no more than someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer must get professional accreditation to be able to practice.

      Drivers have to get the same accreditation to drive as you or I. We both have to have accreditation to drive both ourselves AND to drive other people in our cars. I don't buy the argument that it takes more accreditation, or at least anything more than trivially more accreditation (maybe something about how to deal with handicap people or what not).

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  28. We are proud of our social accomplishments by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    We are proud of our social accomplishments and we do not like people who mess with it. Especially, when they think they do not need to work inside the law. It might be acceptable in the US to fuck the law and the people and make profit from it. Here, we do not like it. And frankly enough international companies are doing it. Therefore, we fight against that. Even though our governments are not really into it. Even though, they encouraged some companies to pay some taxes and accept the local laws.

    1. Re:We are proud of our social accomplishments by euroq · · Score: 1

      What do social accomplishments have to do with it? Mind you, I'm actually envious of your social accomplishments, especially in the Scandanavian countries. I think they're a model for the entire world, including the US. But what does Uber have to do with those? If you don't want to use Uber, and the entire society doesn't want to use Uber, then don't use it!

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    2. Re: We are proud of our social accomplishments by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      These accomplishment come with a price. Drivers have higher income so that they can support their family. In addition companies have to pay for healthcare and obey regulation which prohibit then to try a race to the bottom with the income of employees. Also drivers must be educated properly . And many more. The principle or method used to implement these rules differ, but the bottom line is. You cannot play with employees' income and you cannot ripoff passengers, like Uber does occasionally.

  29. fuck uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they're in blatant violation of taxi laws in the u.s. too and just hide behind semantics... so yeah, fuck these guys.

    1. Re:fuck uber by jcr · · Score: 0

      No, fuck YOU. Customers aren't property, and if cabs can't compete with Uber because of all the regs they bought and paid for to try to exclude competition, thats they're own damned fault.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:fuck uber by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "they're in blatant violation of taxi laws in the u.s. too and just hide behind semantics..."

      In the US this is a selling point for Uber, because here everyone hates the taxi-monopoly laws except the cab companies. Even our cabdrivers hate the fact that, unlike Uber drivers, the company has no connection with the customer and it's murder roulette every time they pick up a fare.

    3. Re:fuck uber by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize an industry was a monopoly. So then there's a pharmaceutical-monopoly? Nice one Potsy and you can stop dick sucking ubber.

    4. Re:fuck uber by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In the US our pharma monopoly, which is government-enforced by a long series of laws passed by the best paid lobbyists in the history of the world, is a much bigger problem than municipal taxi monopolies.

    5. Re:fuck uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, fuck you... if a company doesn't respect its worker rights then why welcome it?

    6. Re:fuck uber by dave420 · · Score: 1

      People like having drivers with proper insurance and training, and so don't particularly like Uber trying to get rid of those protections for the people. That's the issue. Taxis in Europe generally work far better than the US, and so Uber's muscling in on a working system is not seen as the act of a righteous hero, but of an asshole hell-bent on ruining it for some quick money.

    7. Re:fuck uber by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Eh, I consider Uber a bunch of techno criminals but "murder roulette" it really isn't. Maybe "insurance roulette" but I'm pretty sure you have about the same 1:6000 chance of dying in an automobile wreck every time you hit the road in an uber car just the same as if in your own car unless you have some solid data that you would like to share with us to convince me otherwise.

    8. Re:fuck uber by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I said that the medallion drivers are playing murder roulette, because unless you luck out with a credit card transaction, it's basically an anonymous cash business. If a Yellow Cab driver is found dead in an alley, his next of kin have no way of knowing who the customer was. Uber customers are known to the company, call the cabs through an app, and are picked up and dropped at times that are logged. The thugs and drug operatives who prize the 'anonymity' of the traditional taxi experience prefer the old system.

    9. Re:fuck uber by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Ah, gotcha, my mistake.

    10. Re:fuck uber by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am sure the owners taxi companies respect their drivers and their rights. Give me a break.

    11. Re:fuck uber by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The worst of the laws is probably the ones forbidding the US Government from negotiating with pharma companies from a position of strength. Most advanced companies negotiate much lower prices, since the pharma companies will accept them rather than lose all that business.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:fuck uber by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      An interesting case in point: my brother was just prescribed Harvoni, a new drug which costs $120,000 per fill, on his state's medical plan. I'm sure that if the government were allowed to, it could negotiate a better price.

    13. Re:fuck uber by euroq · · Score: 1

      I can see your argument, but I don't think it practically applies here. If Uber drivers are suffering in respects to their rights as compared to taxi drivers, then why don't they just become taxi drivers?

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  30. Umm by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    but that's not how things are done here in Germany," says Muller. "Everyone must respect the rules."

    ......

  31. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that was Germany. Or did they stop teaching that part?

  32. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You hate the politicians for letting corrupt corporations bribe them? But that's the only way you become a politician in the US, if you don't have corporate backers or are not already spectacularly wealthy (which is pretty much the same thing) then you can't afford to run for a congressional or senate seat. The whole US system has been taken over by the corporates now and it pretty much sucks as a result.

    Try living in a Western European or Scandanavian country instead and be amazed at how much happier everyone is. Free education, free health care and a descent social safety net should be the goal of any truly civilized society.

  33. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes!!

  34. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by dave420 · · Score: 2

    His head is not in his arse - you might want to check yours. Leaping to conclusions (as you appear to want to do) is not a sign of a well-functioning brain.

  35. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    You're holding humanity back as you've always been doing. The rest of the world is subsidizing your grandiose socialist pipedream.

    Stop being a cry baby just because this shit is legal in the US doesn't mean it's legal in the rest of the world

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  36. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by umghhh · · Score: 2

    Most of the natives that died as a result of Europeans arriving in Americas died because of infection. This does not make it good but it is not a killing you make it be.

    As for US Americans and their corporations and political elites destroying all the their EU counterparts being better - I have serious doubts. Take Merkel for instance and you will find a ruthless bitch that destroys all that stands in her way (of staying at power). Morals are used here only as a means to that end. The only advantage European countries may have is the size of the country which makes removing of elite leaches a bit easier - it is still damned difficult anyway so that is rather theoretical. You take TTIP&CETA perspective and you will see that actually what happens is that international corporations are undermining the state and societies skimming them all and destroying if need be (in the sake of free trade and spreading of 'liberal and open' society of course).

    In principle it is the the old conflict between power that be and the rest and which is fought over and over again with front lines that are not always clear marked. Uber is a good example of that. There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough. The only real advantage they offer is unified service like in McDonalds so that especially business travelers have their lives made a little bit easier. That advantage is more than offset but pumping the profits outside of respective markets (to some tax heavens usually). How that benefits local societies is not quite clear to me and is (in my view) justified only if services provided benefit from centralization which they do not here. There are services that benefit from such centralization of services however - search machines are one such example (it does not mean there should be only one of course).

  37. as a wannabe-anthropologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i use taxi alot. I also live in denmark. Last year and a half, i took taxi to work in the morning almost exclusively, even though i live 1.7 kilometers from my workplace. I'mma lazy fuck, ehehe. While im in the taxi ,i like to talk to the driver, cos its less boring that way.

    Anyway, the taxi drivers talk often about Uber, and how much they dislike the way it undercuts carefully engineered bureaucratic system that regulates everything about taxi business.

    They say it is meaningless for them to be part of legal taxi ecosystem, when legitimate "illegal taxi service" such as Uber gets to exist. Also, the taxi driver is far worse off under Uber according to them, as the insurance on the car is not provided for in the same way as it would be, have they been under a legitimate (recognised by local bureaucrats) taxi company.

    People do agree its a clever way to bypass existing regulation, but that its a bad idea for the career taxi driver overall.

  38. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once heard someone say that being upset at a politician is meaningless because if we start down that path they might feel indifferent and commit corrupt actions with the sentiment "who cares I'll be hated either way". And right there with a swift flick of the wrist we go from a humane and logical concept like "Don't to bad stuff" to "We'll do bad stuff because even when we are doing supposed good stuff you'll hate us anyway".

    This entire argument is a smoke screen style of psychology. Edward Bernays in Crystallizing Public Opinion spoke about such techniques stemming from herd mentality and spoke about the process of "cutting off" the herd mentality to cater to a set agenda. Above is one of said techniques in his book.

    The psychological premise is to engage the public with an argument. This argument must be one that catches people off balance in a way that when rebutting the argument the opposing loses the argument because deep down they know that what they are challenging is wrong but they don't have enough information to provide it and therefore its only a feeling. And in a news room, this is very easy to create.

    If you can enforce a point-of-view with a certain bias and the opposing can't offer a just as strong rebuttal then the unethical view is accepted while the opposing is looked upon as extremist or too left or too right and is labeled unfounded. The key is to control the flow of information and only provide clouded and partial information that may be seen to give the opposing point-of-view any weight in such arguments.

    If you combine that will the Hegelian dialectic or AKA Problem Reaction Solution. Then you've basically covered the last 100+ years of political activity (maybe even further).

  39. No privacy with Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll never use Uber because it impossible to ride anonymously or in private.

    Every time you use Uber that information about the ride goes to some American company.

    That can then share it at will with the NSA, FBI, etc.

    I walk to a street corner, flag a taxi, pay with cash - there's no record in anyone's computer systems about where I went or when.

    1. Re:No privacy with Uber by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      >

      I walk to a street corner, flag a taxi, pay with cash - there's no record in anyone's computer systems about where I went or when.

      You may be trolling, but I'll bite anyway. Do you also wear a mask and elevator shoes, and alter your gait, so the images from all those video cameras you passed on the way can't be quite as easily identified? Also, did you leave your phone behind, or at least pull the battery?

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    2. Re:No privacy with Uber by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Your boring life really is of no interest to anyone in the U.S. You can quit doubling back on your walking routes as well because I'm sure no one is following you and the tinfoil on your head looks real dumb.

    3. Re:No privacy with Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone's life is boring and of no interest then why does the NSA go to so much effort to spy on everyone?

      The US government spends a lot of money spying on everyone so it therefore seems reasonable to assume that the life of everyone is therefore important.

      But for a generation that has grown up with facebook, instagram, twitter and tinder, those that have thrown their privacy out the window, they probably don't care or don't understand.

    4. Re:No privacy with Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the personal tracking device (a.k.a cell phone) got left behind and if you're not in NYC then you don't need to worry about cameras on every street/corner.

    5. Re:No privacy with Uber by euroq · · Score: 1

      Your concerns are valid. However, you probably have no concern for safety, such as a small young female might. I've known a girl who was robbed a gunpoint when she pulled out a $100 bill in a taxi. It was anonymous, there's no record, etc. I personally had a $20 pulled out of my hands when myself, a male, and another male, were arguing about how to split the fare. Fucker just took it and ran. I'm sure there's tens of thousands of more stories you've never heard because taxis are anonymous.

      Now, on the other hand, it was international news when an assault on a female happened in India by an Uber driver, where there was a complete record of it, and the driver was arrested.

      So, I think the pros outweigh the cons.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  40. Rules, my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's not how things are done here in Germany," says Müller. "Everyone must respect the rules."

    Yeah, sure. Just like all those assholes in Köln a week ago did.

  41. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think after two attempts they noticed that it doesn't work.

    The US are still in the learning phase.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. There are two reasons for this by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Cabs are not needed as often in European cities because of the lush public transit systems available, and are in general a convenience, rather than a necessity. You might take a cab to the airport because you have luggage, but the alternative is a five-minute walk on safe streets (before the "refugees" came, anyway) to a tram or Metro stop, rather than having to beseech some car-equipped friend for a ride.

    Because taxis are a non-critical part of the city experience in Europe, they compete on service. No grimy cabbies who don't speak the local language, and they know the city.

    1. Re:There are two reasons for this by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are refugees. The quotes are not required, and you mentioning them in such scary tones speaks more of your cowardice and fear than any threat posed by people simply wanting to better their families.

    2. Re:There are two reasons for this by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      My mention of "refugees" in such terms speaks of my looking at available news sources.

      At last, Europeans are learning the difference between immigration and insurgency.

    3. Re:There are two reasons for this by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      "Yes, they are refugees."

      Isn't it odd how as a percentage there are so few women, children and old people along with these 20 something male "refugees". Now either the demographics are so screwed in their countries that most of the population is 20 something males, or they're cowards who fled and left their families behind, or just maybe they're not refugees at all but uneducated economic migrants who have nothing to give but plenty to take.

    4. Re:There are two reasons for this by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      | Isn't it odd how as a percentage there are so few women, children and old people along with these 20 something male "refugees".

      No, not at all. The men of that age are subject to conscription by any faction of torturing thugs, or summary execution on sight. And there is no employment other than the hell of a poorly paid, poorly lead, and expendable soldier.

      Of course the men are going to go first rather than subject their wives and children to unexpected dangers---they will make money and then bring them over.

    5. Re:There are two reasons for this by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      "Yes, they are refugees."

      Isn't it odd how as a percentage there are so few women, children and old people along with these 20 something male "refugees". .

      You are an idiot or come from a family that would decide to send grandma onto a rubber boat crossing the Mediterranean and into a foreign country, instead of their most capable young male.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    6. Re:There are two reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is not odd you asshole.

      Would you take your women, children and grandparends with you when you had to walk from France to Syria without a real destination?

    7. Re:There are two reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the scared little bigot spreading his lies and hate again. You really are a pathetic piece of shit.

    8. Re:There are two reasons for this by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      It probably has something to do with the level of mortal danger and survivability of the individual to successfully make the grueling trip out. A 20-something male is more likely to survive a sketchy water-crossing in an overpopulated raft and the scramble over and under fences, etc than an 11 year old girl or even a 30 year old mother with child.

    9. Re:There are two reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe, they are the people with the greatest chances of successfully escaping and making it in a foreign country, so they're the ones who attempted it, rather than submitting themselves to ISIS.

    10. Re:There are two reasons for this by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you'd send your wife and kids first, letting them deal with human traffickers, corruption, and danger, while you wait for them to get settled and send for you via more traditional, safer means?

      Hint: It's fucking DANGEROUS to make the thousands-of-kilometers journey - the guys will usually go first as they have a better chance of surviving, and then send for their families later. They also run the risk of being targeted by whatever military is fucking up their home, as they are of "military age". What's odd is you leaping to conclusions when you've clearly not spent more than half a second thinking about this, and that you are perfectly capable of judging people you know nothing about simply because of their age and place of birth.

    11. Re:There are two reasons for this by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      You don't "send for your family" if they're in the middle of a fucking war zone you brainless gimp! You take them with you and while walking across hills and being in a boat might be dangerous its not as dangerous as being shelled day and night!

      Jesus christ get a clue and try thinking for yourself instead of parroting the delusional right-on groupthink you dribbling halfwit.

    12. Re:There are two reasons for this by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, you send for your family once you have an established, safer route and enough money to pay for it. The family will do what they can to stay safe for the time being, sometimes moving to a location away from the fighting before being summoned.

      You might want to heed your own advice. The amount of drivel you come up with is amazing. It's almost as if you start with the conclusion "I don't want them here", and then you make up explanations for all their actions which neatly align with that conclusion. You're like a creationist, but instead of trying to prove God created everything, you're trying to prove that desperate people are all monsters simply because of some superficial differences you perceive.

    13. Re:There are two reasons for this by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "No, you send for your family once you have an established, safer route and enough money to pay for it. "

      Oh man, are you really this dumb or is it an act? Unbelievable.

      "You're like a creationist"

      Says the man so wedded to his left wing social justice dogma and groupthink he can't even see the trees , never mind the wood. Spot any similarities?

      "you're trying to prove that desperate people are all monsters simply because of some superficial differences you perceive."

      I'd give the straw men a miss, you no good at it. You poor deluded individual.

  43. Rome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've taken a fair number of taxis in Rome over the past 5 years..
    There's a flat fee from the airport to anywhere inside the Wall (maybe inside the GRA?): 50 Euro. If you book ahead, that's what everyone (non-taxi hire car) charges.

    If the weather is terrible and you're out in the suburbs (outside the GRA) and want to get into town, there can be quite a wait for the radio cab to show up. Partly it's demand/surge, partly it's just that bad weather makes bad traffic, and Rome has pretty bad traffic most of the time.

    Out of, say, 20 taxi rides, maybe 1 or 2 seemed a bit "out of the way" or wound up with a higher number on the meter than I expected. Those might have been just because the traffic was so bad, and the driver was trying to find a different route: these were both "outside GRA to inside the wall" trips, and the main radials (Via Salaria, Via Tiburtina) were packed.

  44. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That's how Europe actually does it. We all invest in your education so you can provide the advanced services like medical that we all depend upon. We don't get money back, but affordable healthcare.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Driver compensation by Simulant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone here met an Uber driver who is making a comfortable living driving for Uber full time? I haven't.
    All the drivers I've spoken too are doing it for extra cash or barely scraping by.

    This is my problem with Uber and the so-called sharing economy. The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me.

    1. Re:Driver compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotal, but heard from friend who took Uber on New Year's Day in Miami that they made over $2000 that night due to surge pricing (close to 10x). People still pay it because otherwise you walk (or drive drunk).

    2. Re:Driver compensation by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me

      No, the future is driverless cars and no jobs or pay for cab or Uber drivers. Uber only needs their contractors for a few more years until the technology is ready, then drivers will be free to retrain for better jobs in another industry.

    3. Re:Driver compensation by dysmal · · Score: 1

      Yeah but how much did they make on 01/02?

    4. Re:Driver compensation by Shados · · Score: 1

      Many do in Uber Black, which was the original Uber service and is often a lot closer to "legal" than UberX.

    5. Re:Driver compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me

      No, the future is driverless cars and no jobs or pay for cab or Uber drivers. Uber only needs their contractors for a few more years until the technology is ready, then drivers will be free to retrain for better jobs in another industry.

      No, the drivers will have the freedom to be homeless, starve, and die from curable medical conditions because all the low and medium skilled jobs will be taken by automation and there will be no social safety net.

    6. Re:Driver compensation by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal, but heard from friend who took Uber on New Year's Day in Miami that they made over $2000 that night due to surge pricing (close to 10x).

      Yeah but how much did they make on 01/02?

      My wife's doing Uber currently. She made about a weeks' worth just on New Year's eve/early day alone. However, this week has been her slowest since she started Ubering. I think she said she made $6 yesterday.

    7. Re:Driver compensation by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      I think she said she made $6 yesterday.

      Ho
      lee
      shit

      That is fucking unreal.

    8. Re:Driver compensation by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone here met an Uber driver who is making a comfortable living driving for Uber full time? I haven't.

      I have, or at least one who was making a better living driver for Uber than driving a cab. I had a long chat with an Uber driver in London who had previously worked in IT (helpdesk, I'm guessing, I didn't go into detail on that) and as a minicab driver. He said he made better money driving than working IT, and slightly better than driving a minicab. He said the real thing that drew him to Uber over the minicab, though, wasn't the money but the flexibility. He liked being able to pick his own hours, so he could take his kids to school when his wife had to work, or so he could leave work for an hour or two mid-day to attend an event at his kids' school, etc.

      I can't say that he was "comfortable", but he seemed to think he was doing okay, and felt that Uber gave him a better opportunity to make a living while being the kind of husband and father he wanted to be than the other options available to him.

    9. Re:Driver compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me

      No, the future is driverless cars and no jobs or pay for cab or Uber drivers. Uber only needs their contractors for a few more years until the technology is ready, then drivers will be free to retrain for better jobs in another industry.

      No, the drivers will have the freedom to be homeless, starve, and die from curable medical conditions because all the low and medium skilled jobs will be taken by automation and there will be no social safety net.

      And it will all be FUCKING UBER'S FAULT!

    10. Re:Driver compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factor in cost of fuel, oil, brakes, etc. After 2-3 years their vehicles will be trashed. Just consider the cost of cleaning up after back seat deposit of fluids, be they drinks or human discharge. Yikes!

    11. Re:Driver compensation by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with having a service that's run on people making extra cash? Does everything need to be a full-time job?

    12. Re:Driver compensation by euroq · · Score: 1

      This is true. Uber has invested in driverless-car technology.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  46. Not a tech company by BitZtream · · Score: 0

    the remorseless competition of the US tech industry

    Uber is not a 'tech' company any more than pizzahut is for having an app. Stop pretending uber is anything other than a cab company that operates illegally and treats everyone involved like shit. Their customers, their employees and their competition are all just stepping stones to racking in money because idiots like techies think its 'great' for some unknown reason.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Not a tech company by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

    2. Re:Not a tech company by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How's that different than a cab company? They treat their customers like shit too. In fact, most people (in the US) who use both Uber and cabs say that their experience with Uber is a lot better, because their experiences with cabs are so miserable.

    3. Re:Not a tech company by euroq · · Score: 1

      Uber is not a 'tech' company any more than pizzahut is for having an app.

      Uber comes from Silicon Valley, its culture and its employees there are interbred with other large tech companies. No, the drivers aren't, but in its soul I'd say they are a tech company.

      because idiots like techies think its 'great' for some unknown reason.

      As an American techie, I can explain. I've lived in 3 major US cities. Getting taxis are the worst fucking experience in the world here. Let me clarify, it's not always that way. In fact, I'd say 90% of the time it's not. But then again, 90% of my dealings with Comcast are fine too, but I think they're awful in customer service and the majority of society agrees. Uber (and Lyft, which I think is also awesome), has provided an amazing service that solved so many of the problems of using taxis.

      Some of those unknown reasons you were asking for from an idiot techie: The map which shows you where all drivers are (I can even switch to Lyft to see if the competition has better availability in the time frame or better surge pricing when that happens). The fact that you can request one and they come to you within minutes, unlike Taxis where you never fucking know when or even if they will come. The ability to rate drivers. The fact that they're cheaper. The fact that they're WAY better drivers than most of the immigrants who are taxi drivers in the US who learned to drive in a different country (no disparagement to immigrants meant, but driving in Ethiopia isn't the same). I've gotten out of a taxi in NYC with my heart pounding because I was so scared of the way he was driving. The fact that they're safer, because unlike anonymous taxis who can rob you or rape you, Uber is tracked (and you can even broadcast a message to your friends when you start your ride). Many times they'll provide water and gum for you. The fact that if you leave something in the car, you have the ability to use the app to inform the driver/system and have them return it to you, unlike not knowing what taxi you were just in (happened to my friend who left a cell phone once, we gave him a nice tip for his trouble; I and many other people I know have left something in a taxi, never to see it again - one time we got a cell phone charge for $100 for calls to Kenya a month later).

      Have I missed any reason why they're so much better?

      And remember, you don't have to use Uber. If you hate them, you can always call a taxi.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  47. Genie and bottle by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Uber may ultimately fail, but that doesn't really matter - something else similar will take its place, and the only question is one of how long the process will take. There is a strong parallel between Uber and Napster. In both cases a disruptive technology was used to render existing scarcities obsolete. Those vested in the status quo fought back, but continue to lose ground - the market 'spoke' in the way it always does, but in these cases the incumbents didn't like what the market was saying.

    Napster is dead, but online sharing of music and videos is here to stay. Uber may die, but if it does then other services will take its place, and will be with us for a long time. Then, something else will come along to replace these services, and there will be hand-wringing and protests against the loss of the 'traditional' services. It's the way of the world.

    And the true elites - the ones who could heat their mansions by burning thousand-dollar bills and still be obscenely rich after a few decades - just love these controversies. It keeps everyone's attention off of the fact that without extreme wealth concentration, everyone in the entire world could enjoy a decent and comfortable standard of living and quality of life while working cooperatively to limit population growth and reverse global warming. Yes, maybe it's time to cue the John Lennon song 'Imagine'; but the true and vast potential of humankind needs to be pointed out and acknowledged and encouraged more.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Genie and bottle by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I was with you until the last paragraph. If money was constantly redistributed 'equally', then we'd all just be equally poor.

    2. Re:Genie and bottle by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Wealth isn't just money - it also exists in things such as manufacturing efficiency. So when humans are replaced by robots, (for example), the owners of the factory have two choices - scooping all of the extra profits and leaving the displaced workers to fend for themselves, or sharing the profits with the workers who helped the owners get to the position where they could automate. With the huge efficiency increases in manufacturing and processing capacity that we are experiencing, it strikes me that we could keep everyone employed for 10 to 30 hours a week and all have very nice, fulfilling, and productive lives. Instead, we have lots of people working 60 or 80 hours or more per week just to stay afloat, lots more people stuck in perpetual poverty, and a few sensationally wealthy people.

      And let's dispense with the 'deserved wealth' illusion. Yes, hard work and intelligence play a part in material success, but luck and social connections, (which are really just a manifestation of the aforementioned luck), play a much bigger role. There are lots of VERY smart, VERY hard-working people living in grinding poverty through no fault of their own - and then there are people like the Kardashians.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:Genie and bottle by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Well, then high-capability people won't bother pushing themselves to do much if they have to redistribute their earnings such that they make the same low wage. Why be a dr when a janitor makes just as much? This was tried in the soviet union and the result was a stagnant economy and empty shelves. Automation increases the pressure for sure, but at some point, someone will have to be maintaining, building, and designing these machines. These people will resent being treated this way and will use their control over the machines to gain power. Membership in the CPSU was how this manifested in the USSR. It bestowed extreme privilege (access to 'registered' rubles, ie currency that had actual international value, and 'closed' stores, which offered the best homes/cars/food), and most importantly, access to influencing policy.

      The kardashians banked on fame and won. This has more to do with human behavior than ideology. Most people are idiots who place beauty on a pedestal and worship it, even if it's manufactured (search for pics of them without makeup). You're right about the social connections, but your solution would reenforce this as you would remove the only other path to success: earning wealth and getting to keep it in spite of those at the top.

    4. Re:Genie and bottle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "everyone in the entire world could enjoy a decent and comfortable standard of living"

      Sorry, but that simply is not true. The GDP of the world is about 77.3 Trillion, the world population is 7.125 Billion. Divide one by the other and you get ~$10,800 per person per year. That isn't enough to put a roof over my head where I live let alone feed & clothe myself, and I live in a pretty reasonably priced area of the US.

    5. Re:Genie and bottle by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Why be a dr when a janitor makes just as much?

      Personal fulfillment? Self-esteem? Passion? You know, the exact same reasons I choose to work in the job that I do currently when I could be making more money working in a career field that I despise but would ultimately garner me much much more money as compensation. That kind of shit.

    6. Re:Genie and bottle by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That you have no passion you'd work for speaks more of you than anyone else. You sound really, really sad.

    7. Re:Genie and bottle by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work for long when you're subsisting on the shit output of all the other miserable workers. Even in the job you chose, you're still being paid and (to less of a degree every day) you get to keep most of what you earn. While not as luxurious, you're obviously willing to live the lifestyle it affords you. It's a trade off you're willing to make. Without that pay, you would not feel fulfilled, passionate, or have much self esteem.

    8. Re:Genie and bottle by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Your love of fallacy intrigues me. May I subscribe to your newsletter?

    9. Re:Genie and bottle by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's possible to have a functioning society and economy with considerably less inequality of wealth. We've done it before. Very few people argue for a completely equal distribution, but many see the inequality we've got now as a real problem, and see that the non-rich are generally not benefiting from rises in national productivity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  48. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    And there are no victims so easily plucked clean as a population that is legally unable to defend itself. In European societies you have to hope the police are everywhere, because that's all the protection you have.

  49. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You're holding humanity back as you've always been doing. The rest of the world is subsidizing your grandiose socialist pipedream.

    Stop being a cry baby just because this shit is legal in the US doesn't mean it's legal in the rest of the world

    If that were true, and it's not quite established that it is, all that would mean is that you have more shitty laws than we do. You've had more time to create them. Legality has never been the same as morality or even common sense, and is often not aligned with the will or good of the people, so your argument ("the law says so") is stupid.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  50. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by fulldecent · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, assuredly, non-advanced services education are not provided for free, right?

    Because it would discourage a potential doctor from studying medicine if they could also get free education for becoming an artist.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  51. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I think after two attempts they noticed that it doesn't work.

    It's at least three.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  52. Wiggeeee by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark.

    Donald, is that you?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Wiggeeee by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No. Trump would not call competition 'remorseless.'

  53. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nonsense. Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years. The actual problem is twofold: first, that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams or not sufficiently diligent to perform well in school; and second, that the parents do not value education enough to encourage their children to go to college. The two problems are not unrelated.

  54. More at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet Armored Blitz Reaches the Ruhr Valley - Uber Consolidates Losses and Retreats Across the Rhein.

  55. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    If that were true, and it's not quite established that it is, all that would mean is that you have more shitty laws than we do. You've had more time to create them. Legality has never been the same as morality or even common sense, and is often not aligned with the will or good of the people, so your argument ("the law says so") is stupid.

    Find me a law that isn't shitty they are all written from the point of view that in order to stop a minority of people doing something we have to make it illegal for everybody. As for laws in foreign countries being shittier than ours I'm sure that holds true from the point of view of citizens of most civilized countries where the police actually get prosecuted if they shoot dead an unarmed civilian who was trying to surrender. However, that's not true for my country ( https://www.google.co.uk/url?s... ) or yours.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  56. The usual thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A group of people defending their niche, red in tooth and claw, against progress. It will not happen immediately but, just as buggy drivers are gone, so will taxi drivers eventually. They'll be lucky if they can get another two decades.

    1. Re:The usual thing by Punko · · Score: 1

      Uber does not represent progress. Say it with me, Uber does not represent progress. Uber is regressive for drivers. Repeating the drivel that Uber is progressive or or represents progress is deceiving. Are they a disruptive technology? YES. we can agree on that. Does it better the world ? On the assumption that Uber is always cheaper, the drive to shot term cost savings for long term pain, transfer of risk, lowering of quality of both service and life for the service providers has never worked well. Look at many department stores and small city downtown cores since Wal-mart started its march across north america. Are you better served? Are the staff? Are you the prices you are paying actually lower, or are they lower only until any competition has been driven away ? Driving labour rates down to export profit from the country does nothing positive. The transfer of insurance and health risk onto the driver instead of the taxi company is insane.

      While I will agree that taxi drivers decades are diminishing, it won't be Uber that takes them out, it will be driverless cars.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
  57. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by NotDrWho · · Score: 0, Troll

    When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  58. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams

    I'm wondering how you even managed to pass the captcha, quite frankly.

  59. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by orasio · · Score: 1

    You said the same as the parent.
    Poor kids can get an education, but it's much harder for them than it is for rich kids.

    About correlation between poverty and parents perceived value of education, well, I can't think clearly on a empty stomach, can you?

  60. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    Nonsense. Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years. The actual problem is twofold: first, that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams or not sufficiently diligent to perform well in school; and second, that the parents do not value education enough to encourage their children to go to college. The two problems are not unrelated.

    Still blaming the poor for being poor, eh? The corollary would be that if everyone worked hard and was smart enough there would be no poor; everyone would be rich and successful. Is that your position? Under our economic system, do you think that's possible? Would McDonald's employees be driving Bentleys if they were smart and industrious enough? Or would there simply be no McDonald's employees? Or is your argument just rubbish?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  61. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Then your grandfather was an intellectually lazy bigot.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  62. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With each post your perplexing signature makes more and more sense. You are so incredibly apt to lump all kinds of disparate people together under one simple label, to judge away and ascribe whatever motive you want to their actions. No wonder you are so confused about nearly every topic you discuss here.

  63. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.

    What I don't understand is why they don't value money over absolutely everything else. What's wrong with these people?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  64. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good job, Mallory. Keep it rolling. We have to convince the slaves that responsibility for workforce development is not on our backs, else there won't be a flood of college-trained workers for us to pick from. If people stop getting self-directed college education, we'll get a labor shortage, and you know what that means: we have to take up entrants, train them, send them to college, pay for it, and then give them fair salaries and good benefits so they don't leave for a better employer. That would be horrifying; they're supposed to be serfs, not human beings!

  65. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Then your grandfather was an intellectually lazy bigot.

    We have a number of them over here.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  66. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Yeah, Germany especially is in the depths of depression.

    oh......wait.....

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  67. shit job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets face it, Taxi driver is a shit job, and Uber drivers are just trying to compete with honest people for shit jobs to make them shittier.

    1. Re:shit job by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having monopolies on shit jobs that drive up costs and drive down QOS makes everything better?

    2. Re:shit job by dave420 · · Score: 1

      These don't exist in many countries. Not all the world is as dysfunctional with taxis as the US.

  68. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The two problems are not unrelated.

    As you prove so well.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  69. Frankfort? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    You might want to correct the summary...it's Frankfürt, not Frankfort.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Frankfort? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, it's Frankfurt. Technically Frankfurt am Main, but Frankfurt will do.

    2. Re:Frankfort? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No, you left out the Umlaut. But you got me for forgetting "am Main". Either way, it's still not Frankfort.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Frankfort? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There is no umlaut to miss out - it's Frankfurt. Furt is German for "ford", making Frankfurt mean "Furt der Franken" / "Ford of the Franks".

    4. Re:Frankfort? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Damnit, I hate it when I'm wrong.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:Frankfort? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's an interesting question about the "right" names for places. The capital of Russia is called Moscow in English (although generally pronounced "Moskoe"), while the natives call it "Moskva" with a long o. Is "Bavaria" instead of "Bayern" correct, and under which circumstances? Should we be saying Rome in Italy or Roma in Italia? Sometimes it's a territorial dispute, such as the British desire to keep control of the Falklands vs. the Argentinian desire to get control of the Malvinas.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Frankfort? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The parent was correct, and I mistaken. But, nobody calls it Frankfort, unless you're talking about the city in Kentucky.

      But, to your point, having been born in Detroit, I was very surprised when on a trip to France, I saw the "Daytwa" Grand Prix broadcast in my hotel room. I also wondered whatever happened to "Peking"...I just looked that up.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  70. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's what the B ark inhabitants said that to themselves.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  71. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by dave420 · · Score: 1

    With every post you paint a picture of a scared person lashing out at a world they don't understand, constantly looking over their shoulder for a ghost that does not exist, while using the threat of that ghost to screw everyone over until they are as scared as you are.

  72. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.

    Having done a fair amount of genealogy, I'd say one of the biggest factors for coming to the US was having very little to lose.

    Successful people tend not to pick up and leave everything and everyone they know. It's the people who didn't see a future in Europe that came to America - because of the local economy, or because they were raised as farmers but had no land to farm, etc.

  73. Only a tad bit of bias in the summary by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    ...where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark.

    Bias much?

    Uber is playing fast and dirty, but 'deference to established interests' is hardly any better, esp when they're just using the state to back their own anti-competitive shenanigans.

    1. Re:Only a tad bit of bias in the summary by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Please stop thinking taxis in the whole of Europe suck as much as American ones. Here in Germany they are generally fantastic - new(-ish) Mercedes, clean, trained and insured drivers, strict laws stopping them from messing with/defrauding people, and so on. It's easy enough to become a taxi driver, too, so there really isn't much to complain about. Uber leapt on the German market simply because of its size, not because it was trying to fix or improve something (outside their bottom line).

  74. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by John+Jorsett · · Score: 0

    Why don't you go buy a gun, invade a random country and shoot everybody. That's what America stands for.

    Next time the Continent turns itself into an abattoir and is looking for America to bail it out, we'll quote that back to you.

  75. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    And there are no victims so easily plucked clean as a population that is legally unable to defend itself. In European societies you have to hope the police are everywhere, because that's all the protection you have.

    Yeah in the USA the women would pull their guns out and start spraying bullets everywhere.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  76. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
    Well, it's Europes loss.

    I LOVE Uber. Now getting someone to drive you is a reasonable cost.

    These days, if I know I"m gonna be out drinking...I just plan to use Uber, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

    I just don't get what people have against the contractor paradigm. I personally LOVE doing it. I'm responsible for myself, I set my hours (for the most part)...I write so many things off to save on taxes, I make sure to set aside enough money for taxes, retirement, etc.

    Yes, you have to put on your Big Boy pants, and be responsible...and if you don't want to do it, don't.

    But I don't get all the hate on people that DO want to work that model.

    And so far, all the Uber drivers I've met, seem to really like the flexible work model.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  77. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1, Troll

    Actually, the original Europeans who came over here were tired of getting the short end of the religion stick, and wanted to be the bullies who got to define what religion was right.

    That and Australia still was undiscovered...

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  78. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.

    But why would you want to study something your can't monetize? Unless of course you think that you'd be a great artist (hey, what artist doesn't?), and if you're this delusional, the world might be better off with you as an artist than as a doctor.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  79. The rules protect the customer not a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least in Germany. The rules are quite simple. From what I remember to transport people commercially you need:

    A license. This is not hard to get. You have to take a test proving that you know the relevant regulations and the lay of the land. It costs some money to get but anyone can get it and there are no limitations for the number of licences given out.

    Insurance. Private car insurance does not cover commercial transportation. You need a more expensive one.

    A car that went through a technical test. Every car in Germany must be tested by a testing agency for road safety regularly. Cars used in commercial passenger transport must be tested in shorter intervals. I think its every year instead of every two but the test is the same.

    That's it. There are some more regulations if you want the actual TAXI sign on top of your car and be allowed to pick up passengers that flag you down or park at a taxi stand but uber is not about that anyway so they do not count.

    The problem is that once a driver calculates everything driving costs it's not profitable any more at what uber pays. The biggest cost is depreciation and maintenance on the vehicle. Only hobbyist drivers will forget about that. For them the license and insurance are prohibitive while they are only minor costs for a full time driver.

  80. in the UK - Uber's uptake is massive! by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    Why is Uber welcome in the uk?

    Black taxis (the iconic meter driven type) here are prohibitively expensive.

    Minicabs are incredibly unreliable and can have very dodgy drivers.

    Ubers provides the following: credit card payment, instant booking and availability checking, ourney planner and destination address sync with the driver's GPS, A rating system for drivers and passengers.

    They are also Available in areas where black taxi service doesn’t exist or is incredibly infrequent.

    They offer extremely cheap prices for most journey types compared to black taxis/ minicabs.

  81. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Neither is being in denial. There are enough eye witness testimonies of north africans who didn't speak german so unless all these witnesses are liars I would suggest its you who needs to check out his brain function.

  82. Yellow Cab bankruptcy in San Francisco by peter303 · · Score: 1

    For reorganization of debts, not liquidation. San Francisco is the epicenter of the sharing economy.

  83. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    No, it is not. Apparently you do not understand the relationship between education (not necessarily university) and the economy. Educating citizens advances the group as a whole. It improves the economy and increases wealth. I thought this was well understood, but apparently not. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but there at least used to be an approximation of this effect by measuring engineers per capita.

  84. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by ultranova · · Score: 2

    I just don't get what people have against the contractor paradigm. I personally LOVE doing it. I'm responsible for myself, I set my hours (for the most part)...I write so many things off to save on taxes, I make sure to set aside enough money for taxes, retirement, etc.

    It's not the paradigm itself, it's that there's a lot of shady employers out there who want to call their employees "contractors" simply to shift all the risk - and none of the benefits - to them.

    and if you don't want to do it, don't.

    If you can afford to pick your jobs, good for you. Most people do whatever is available, and that means anything that makes it easier to screw them - such as getting called a "contractor" rather than an employee - is a threat and gets treated that way.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  85. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile you're just another comfortable pseudo intellectual liberal idiot who has no clue about real life. I would pity you and your kind except you're the reason for a lot of the problems in germany and the rest of europe at the moment.

  86. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I don't think Tesla would agree with you. My family history also does not jobe with that narrative.

    I think the greatest reason to come to the US was greater opportunity, not some sort of forced migration of despair.

    Yes, the willingness to embrace opportunity can be enhanced considerably by having no ties to cut, but if you look at a number of immigrants, they had some things going for them elsewhere, but they had a limit to how far they could go in Europe. Rightly or wrongly, the US represented nearly unlimited opportunity for those who could make a go of it. It was not easy to grasp that opportunity, but except perhaps for becoming President of the United States, there's nothing a that a naturalized citizen could not do.

    Europe of that time was very different from today, with a still powerful aristocracy in most places that was not just a bunch of people with ornamental titles. This tended to limit opportunity considerably for those not of the proper class. Some people were quite able to live happy lives under that situation, but all opportunity eventually led straight having to deal with the landed and aristocratic classes.

    Certainly, the people who didn't leave Europe had their reasons, and calling them cowards is ridiculous. If there was a bigger mass migration *from* Europe, it is quite possible that the opportunities would have opened up much closer to home for Europeans.

  87. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Jamestown pre-dates Plymouth by 13 years and had nothing to do with religion.

    Yes, the freedom of being out from under the thumb of the established churches did make it easier for fringe groups to come and set up their own little theocracies, but that period is actually a fairly small portion of the colonial period. Once the colonial governments were put under Royal administration, they simply ended up as areas with a very Puritan culture, but not a particularly religious governance. No more so than most governments of the time, really.

  88. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are issues, but in general a capable person can and will make a decent living in the US. Denying that is kind of insane. One of my friends immigrated from Romania, has a 9th grade education and is a multi-millionaire because he owns a trucking company that he started working at as a mechanic for pennies an hour. He was granted no special protections or help from the government, he did it through hard work. Many poor are victims of a bad situation, but at least as many are victims of their own laziness. It's not a game of absolutes. No matter what system we have we will have poor that are unwilling... Recognizing that and accepting that is key to actually helping those that are being victimized.

  89. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Rich kids are guaranteed higher education, if they want it.

    Poor kids have to work at it.

    My only problem with this is that the Rich kids don't have to work for it.

  90. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Creating educated people does not create jobs for them by default. It just means you have very qualified unemployed people.

    Yes, there is a relation between national education levels and productivity, but only if that education is pointed at productive enterprises. As much as I loved my history studies, if I wasn't someone with many years of tech experience, I'd have a lot more trouble holding down a job.

    The problem with tuition in the United States right now is twofold. Colleges and Universities are increasing student services, and much more importantly, state government money is being diverted from education to pay for mandates for things like Medicaid and other entitlements. Unlike the Federal government, the state governments are more zero sum in their budgeting process, and state governments are constitutionally responsible for education.

    If you want to seriously drive down tuitions, the state has to have the money to pitch in again, and you may need to drastically cut back student services on campus.

    Additionally, it may well make sense to not make a college degree a prerequisite for every job under the sun. The US used to have a lot of jobs that did not require more than an apprenticeship to make very good money on.

  91. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's great. Of course, tuition is only a small part of the charges for actually attending a college or university.

  92. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by dywolf · · Score: 1

    if that were so, then why do the nations of Europe typically rank pretty high on various like the economic freedom index, simple freedom index, quality of life, longevity of life, economic security, personal safety/security, etc?

    oh right.
    you're just ignorant.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  93. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    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.

  94. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

    If you can afford to pick your jobs, good for you.

    Say what??

    EVERYONE can pick their jobs. I don't know, at least in the US, where anyone is forced to take any particular job, no guns held to heads, etc.

    If you don't see jobs you like, then you're not looking hard enough...or you're not flexible enough, you may need to move, etc.

    No one is owed a good paying job that is convenient for you. You have to make the efforts to find what is appropriate for you, and if need be...go to the job.

    It isn't like Uber is the only game in town...and besides, if someone is so poor they can't get any other job but Uber, I'm guessing they don't have the car quality to drive Uber, if they own a car at all.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  95. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    -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.

  96. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    *Free because college graduates pay back more in taxes to the government in 6 years than the cost of their education.

    OK, I've heard of a lot of statements regarding our college graduates, but this bullshit takes the cake.

    Why? Well because technically you need a fucking job in order to actually pay taxes on it.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
    How US students get a university degree for free in Germany
    By Franz Strasser BBC News, Germany
    3 June 2015
    While the cost of college education in the US has reached record highs, Germany has abandoned tuition fees altogether for German and international students alike. An increasing number of Americans are taking advantage and saving tens of thousands of dollars to get their degrees.
    More than 4,600 US students are fully enrolled at Germany universities, an increase of 20% over three years. At the same time, the total student debt in the US has reached $1.3 trillion (£850 billion).
    (Hunter Bliss, South Carolina.)
    Each semester, Hunter pays a fee of â111 ($120) to the Technical University of Munich (TUM), one of the most highly regarded universities in Europe, to get his degree in physics.
    Included in that fee is a public transportation ticket that enables Hunter to travel freely around Munich.
    Health insurance for students in Germany is â80 ($87) a month, much less than what Amy would have had to pay in the US to add him to her plan.
    To cover rent, mandatory health insurance and other expenses, Hunter's mother sends him between $6,000-7,000 each year.
    At his nearest school back home, the University of South Carolina, that amount would not have covered the tuition fees. Even with scholarships, that would have totalled about $10,000 a year. Housing, books and living expenses would make that number much higher.
    Research shows that the system is working, says Sebastian Fohrbeck of DAAD, and that 50% of foreign students stay in Germany.
    "Even if people don't pay tuition fees, if only 40% stay for five years and pay taxes we recover the cost for the tuition and for the study places so that works out well."

  97. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

    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"?

  98. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The people who went to the US were largely those of relatively far-from-the-middle minority religious or political beliefs.
    They went to the US in order to be free to prosecute others.

  99. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    EVERYONE can pick their jobs. I don't know, at least in the US, where anyone is forced to take any particular job, no guns held to heads, etc.

    Not every country has the incredibly high welfare standards of the US. /sarcasm

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  100. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.

    But why would you want to study something your can't monetize?

    It happens here in the US all the time! And often paid for with loans. Which can't be paid back, because there are only so many jobs for many of the useless degrees that state-supported colleges offer these days.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  101. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Median cost of 4-year college education in 2012-2013 was $35074. http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/d...
    This is a five year payback period. http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
    This is the lowest it has been for many decades. Guess what else costs more today? Bread.

  102. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

    Several accounts of cruelty and murder include Spaniards testing the sharpness of blades on Native people by cutting them in half, beheading them in contests and throwing Natives into vats of boiling soap. There are also accounts of suckling infants being lifted from their mother’s breasts by Spaniards, only to be dashed headfirst into large rocks. Bartolome De Las Casas, a former slave owner who became Bishop of Chiapas, described these exploits. “Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel,” he wrote. “My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write.” Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedia...

    Whether they killed all of them intentionally or not isn't really an issue because they proved to be absolutely inhuman by the ways they intentionally killed the ones that didn't die from disease.

  103. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by war4peace · · Score: 1

    We're talking about the same nation which only got involved after Pearl Harbour?

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  104. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by ncc74656 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Forcing people into dept so they can get an education.

    Nobody forced you to sign on the dotted line for the loan to fund your $55k/year Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies degree that rendered you less fit for a career asking people "you want fries with that?" than you were before you went in. It's your fault you didn't look into more cost-effective options which you might've been able to pay as you go, or at least rack up a smaller, more easily paid-off pile of debt. It's your fault you picked a worthless degree with no real-world applicability. Why should I (with the computer-science degree from a state school) and others like me (not to mention all of the millions who found gainful employment without a degree in the trades, the military, or whatever) have to finance your poor choices?

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  105. What "clash of cultures"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For there to be a "clash of cultures" there should be more than one. This is not the case. Europeans have a culture, usians do not. There is simply no comparison between we Aryan Herrenvolk and the mongrel untermensch that infest north america, a continent first discovered by Northern Europeans, proud members of the heroic Germanic folk. The inferior americans must bow to the superiority of Europe now and forever. Sieg Heil.

  106. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, I would like the GP asshat to prove, using math, how it would be possible for everyone to be rich. Since measure of wealth is relative, all he could prove is that it would be mathematically possible for everyone to have exactly the same amount of wealth.

  107. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by nbauman · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting article. I agree with one of the comments:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

    Jonathan NYC February 12, 2014

    This comparison does not mean much, because it does confuses cause and effect.

    A proper experiment would involve two groups of equal ability. One group receives a free college education, the other group receives the equivalent cash and is told to start working. Each group is instructed to make as much money as possible.

    When Bernie Sanders went to Brooklyn College, tuition was free. Now tuition is significant.

    Students who come from wealthy families are more able and likely to get a college degree. Once they graduate, they still have all the benefits of a wealthy family.

    If your father is a lawyer, you graduate law school and use your father's connections to get a job. But people who work their way through law school have a hard time getting a job. I know lawyers and the difference is striking. One guy from a good family graduates Harvard or Yale and goes to work for a top corporate law firm. Another guy from a working class family graduates Fordham and goes to work in immigration law or criminal practice.

  108. Uber is a house of cards by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

    Uber hates regulations.
    They say they welcome regulation, but when it happens, they whine and cry, then pack up and leave.
    They say they have proper back ground checks for drivers, proper insurance, and safety checks for the cars.
    In reality they do a public records check on drivers which is far less than what a police check does. They encourage drivers to use their personal insurance for Ubering and risk cancellation and being sued into oblivion when an accident happens.
    The safety checks are nothing more than a cursory glance done at an oil change place, rather than a real MOT check done by a real mechanic, the same used if you were buying a used car.
    The whole system is a house of cards built on suckers - drivers who work with uber risk their financial well being in an accident, scams by Uber to rent a car to you if you don't and charge you exorbitant to do it. Drivers are suing them in California to be classed as employees. Riders who risk themselves in an accident to save a buck on a trip and cry when Uber screws them with surge pricing.
    Uber is gambling that self driving cars will be available before the they run out of venture capitalists willing to fund another year of operations.

    --
    "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
  109. Taxi company or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can uber claim to not be a taxi company if it has full time drivers?

  110. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're talking about the same nation which only got involved after Pearl Harbour?"

    Not wholly true: Battle of the Atlantic
    ... By 1941, the United States was taking an increasing part in the war, despite its nominal neutrality. In April 1941 President Roosevelt extended the Pan-American Security Zone east almost as far as Iceland. British forces occupied Iceland when Denmark fell to the Germans in 1940; the US was persuaded to provide forces to relieve British troops on the island. American warships began escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic as far as Iceland, and had several hostile encounters with U-boats. A Mid-Ocean Escort Force of British, and Canadian, and American destroyers and corvettes was organized following the declaration of war by the United States.

  111. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by mbkennel · · Score: 1


    Game consoles and phones are very inexpensive and last years. Rents, mortgages, medical care, and education are expensive and are ongoing expenses.

    Of course you'll buy your children a $100 game off craigslist even if you can't afford $900 a month on rent.

  112. Irony Alert... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    "It's not part of the German culture to do something like" what Uber did says Kurt. "We don't like it, the government doesn't like it, and our customers don't like it."

  113. Monopolization of on-line services by WoOS · · Score: 1

    Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed.

    Yes, that is exactly what we see in other comercial areas such as
    * On-line Book selling (uh I meant selling of nearly everything)
    * On-line auctions
    * Search engines (uh I meant news integrator, mobile OS vendor, and whatever else)
    * Social networks
    In all these areas, after the first guy opened the market we see the business spread evenly over more and more companies with none coming near a monopoly which it could potentially abuse to e.g. make experiments on its users.

  114. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    It works on and off for the US, so no reason to give it up yet.

  115. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back to your cave and let the grown-ups do the talking.

  116. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that mentalities like yours are on their way out.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  117. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that socialism is the way forward, the only path to enlightenment.

  118. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, all higher education is free. There is more to live than just educating doctors; artists play a key role in society here and this is recognized.

  119. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    So? One of my best friends is a Harvard corporate lawyer for a public utility and hates his job.

  120. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Do you disagree with the data and sources provided and which part? I shows that college education is less expensive now (payback time required) vs any time in at least the past 40 years.

  121. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

    That's Yanks for you - turn up late, eat all the food and demand all the attention. In that respect they are just like my mother-in-law (badoom tish)

  122. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years.

    Bullshit. Loans maybe, but no grants for adult education as far as we've been able to find.

    Having a *few* grants available for *some* people is in no way the same as having universally inexpensive education. GP's post is spot on.

  123. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good comeback. No wait, the opposite....

  124. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Most of the natives that died as a result of Europeans arriving in Americas died because of infection. This does not make it good but it is not a killing you make it be.

    It's possible to infect people intentionally. To take a totally hypothetical example that I completely made up, by supplying them with blankets that had previously been used by smallpox victims.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  125. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it should be. We Europeans know that allowing the populace to arm themselves would doom our great civilization to chaos and anarchy. Fortunately, we Europeans are disciplined and we're all ready to lay down our very lives so that Europe may prosper!

    Fuer Europa! Heil Europa! Wir essen das Scheisse fuer dich!

  126. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Most people do whatever is available

    I know a couple of people who don't work because they make more on welfare. While this situation sucks, we can at least assume that Uber contractors are making a net positive amount of money compared to the unemployed.

    Contractor abuse will end when the US has a proper welfare system that someone could live (uncomfortably) on. Until then, it's serfdom all over again.

  127. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm led to belive that one of the major reasons for poor potato crop was that most of the crop was a particular variety of potato. Which helped the blight spread. A diverse crop would have been clearly hit by blight but not to the same extent. Why everyone planted the same variety I don't know as it was a market economy. The people making that decision was unlikley to be the aristocratic landowners themselves (almost someone certainly that the current Irish population would like not to be considered Irish, also most likely not even in the country at the time) more likley it was the people responsible for the farm management (Irish middle class under the British). I think it's important to realise that Ireland under the British wasn't simply a case of master and servant but one all the classes that existed in the same way across the rest of the isles. The lower classes were being universally dicked upon and it was only really WWI that changed that.

    I think after the famine the British government response in the short term was clearly poor however the longer term if creating a significant number of public works was quite sensible.

  128. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    It's not the paradigm itself, it's that there's a lot of shady employers out there who want to call their employees "contractors" simply to shift all the risk - and none of the benefits - to them.

    Thing is, at least in the USA 'most' cabbies are also considered contractors by the taxi companies. They actually have to rent the vehicle, pay a fee to the dispatcher to get fares, and rent the medallion in areas that require them.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  129. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Luckily for Australia we got the criminals not the religious extremist nut jobs.

  130. FUCK TAXIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop trying to keep humanity in the dark ages you fucking losers. if you think you can keep a monopoly despite NOONE liking your shitty attitudes, poor local language skills, poor directions, scam pricing, youre crazy. FUCK TAXIS

  131. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile you're just another paranoid American fuckwad, who has no understanding of the civilised world.
    Europe is getting along very nicely, due to being civilised, try travelling and seeing the real world not something based of the lies of far right nut jobs.

  132. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Yes, I disagree. It shows that college is associated with higher income, but not that college causes higher income.

    It's consistent with the alternative hypothesis that (1) today, for the most part, only students from wealthy families can afford to go to college. (2) People from wealthy families tend to make more money than people from low-income families.

    I'd be very interested in data that shows causation. Then we could for example sort it by fields of study to find out which fields of study were most effective in raising income.

    Association is not causation. That's an important principle in social science (or any science). Economists keep ignoring that.

  133. not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, much of Europe is neutered. Many (most?) have no real concept of what it's like to do anything you want (within reason), like starting a business of any kind, without having to ask permission from any "authority" figure. In the US we of course have laws, but the "status quo" is intended to be challenged, otherwise nothing progresses, and societies stagnate.

    1. Re:not surprising by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That is absolute nonsense. Start a business in the EU and you can get all sorts of grants and sweeteners. The American status quo seems to be "the workers getting screwed over again" with your terrible amount of days off, poor health care, pathetic welfare, etc. You can keep it, seriously.

  134. Only for NYC by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    One thing to realize is that the situation is different in every area. $1M medallions is NYC and a few other spots. For example, I understand Uber is operating more or less completely legally as a black car service in NYC, while it's breaking the law(at least technically) in others. In a number of cases, insurance for example, Uber has adjusted to become compliant with laws.

    I'll admit that I use NYC a lot in my Uber examples myself, because it's the most research I've done.

    One thing to realize about the taxi companies complaining about rules and regulations - they lobbied for a lot of them themselves to better help keep the market to themselves. See 'regulatory capture'.

    In the end, an easy to use rating system(where you're dropped if you go below ~4.3/5) seems to do more to ensure driver 'quality' and performance than all the rules and regulations Taxis face.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  135. Don't take taxis to the airport? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    If you don't take a taxi to the airport, how do you get there? Just curious. I know my family normally tries to have somebody drop them off, but if that isn't available, a taxi seems to be a good backup.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Don't take taxis to the airport? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Flybus.

      --
      Shiny New Australia.
    2. Re:Don't take taxis to the airport? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Ah. I normally take those when I'm going from a hotel to the airport, but from my house to the airport is more difficult. It'd be easier if I was actually in a city to take a bus there, I think.

      Last time I flew I took the bus - but I was parked at a remote lot at work in order to do so, and end up taking a taxi back because the buses don't run that early/late.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Don't take taxis to the airport? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      If you don't take a taxi to the airport, how do you get there? Just curious. I know my family normally tries to have somebody drop them off, but if that isn't available, a taxi seems to be a good backup.

      In most developed cities, they have trains from the CBD to the airports. The best example I've had is Hong Kong, where you can check-in to your flight at the train station in the city, hang out in town all day, then get on the express train to the Airport and jump straight on your plane.
      Once you've experienced first rate infrastructure, it makes you angry that we have to put up with such shit back home. The concept of car focussed transport was a massive strategic error for town planning.

    4. Re:Don't take taxis to the airport? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The concept of car focused transport was a success, at least for those who were pushing it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  136. Surge pricing. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with it? It encourages conservation and more drivers coming out and working. I've heard people talk about people who only ever drive for Uber DURING surge pricing.

    The alternative is likely more people NOT getting rides.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  137. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    I disagree. You can compare across time, and so it is perfectly fair to say that the majority of people are filthy rich (compared to our ancestors 10,000 years ago).

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  138. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    "Even if people don't pay tuition fees, if only 40% stay for five years and pay taxes we recover the cost for the tuition and for the study places so that works out well."

    And that's without counting the macroeconomics of it -- the students can be considered as tourists or an export of education, it is jobs created and foreign money coming in, besides an opportunity to influence world culture and attitudes.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  139. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber is a view into the future in some ways. We've been working on working ourselves out of jobs since the industrial revolution and we're almost there.

    First, replace all the full time employees with contractors, then replace all the contractors with self driving cars.

    There are about 8 million jobs in the US for drivers, cabs, long haul trucking, delivery trucks, and all that will go away very quickly once self driving vehicles are available. So will jobs driving farming equipment, planes, and stuff I'm too lazy too think up.

    Electric cars won't need the same kind of maintenance as fossil fueled vehicles, so less jobs for mechanics, so there's thousands more jobs gone.

    Eventually, you have 9 billion people on a planet with only a few hundred million jobs.

    So if you look at the ten year business plan of Uber, you can see Socialism way down at the bottom.

    Job sharing, working part time, early retirement, those things would be good.

    Or our Corporate overlords will keep all the jobs/money for themselves and the rest of us can eat Soylent Green.

  140. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Do you have a valid refutation? It's all over the news now that German women have to worry about this kind of thing. We don't have this problem in America; there's no women in Times Square NYC being raped by hordes of North African men.

  141. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    While I do not expect complex answers from simple carbohydrates, did you at any point consider explaining why you disagree with his statement rather than just making a dubious assertion about the popularity of such opinions?

  142. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by nytes · · Score: 1

    No ever respects the poo.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  143. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Frankzy · · Score: 1

    You could always just increase taxes.. And regarding the education level needed, everyone knows that unskilled labour is becoming more and more of a rarity. For an example when my mother was young she worked for a while with soldering circuit boards in telephones, nowadays this is done by robots and there's a looooot of unskilled work that has been replaced in this fashion.

  144. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not us Europeans being "inhuman", it's non-Europeans being subhuman. It's that simple. You probably don't have the scope to understand this.

  145. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just take everyone's money! Problem solved!"

    Get to bed, Bernie. It's late.

  146. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by war4peace · · Score: 1

    That's not getting involved, that's standing on on the side and commenting loudly.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  147. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber drivers are too dumb to realize they're getting fucked. After gas and car wear/tear, they're making less than minimum wage.

  148. It's not just breaking rules, it's culture by Invalidator · · Score: 1

    "In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop" Yes, this is true, but the rest of the sentence should probably read: After courts told them twice to stop.

    Americans are, to put it mildly, obsessed with autos as a means of transport. In Europe, we have public transport that is often better (more efficient) than an auto. Taxis (in Amsterdam) where I live, are mostly used by tourists. Local people hardly ever use them because (well, mostly we travel by bike) the public transport option is far cheaper and just as efficient. No worry about parking, for example. And no long walks from the public transport stop to your destination.

    What Uber is doing is not unlike opening a Kosher restaurant in Amman.

    --

    ~_~ Not tonight, dear, I have a modem.

  149. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by dave420 · · Score: 1

    But it's not Europe's loss, though. Many parts of Europe have excellent taxi service - great cars, knowledgeable drivers, good training, adequate insurance. All Uber brings is an app, surge pricing, uninsured drivers, and worse-trained drivers. I know it might be hard for you to understand, but some countries didn't fuck up taxi services like the US seems to have done.

  150. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by loufoque · · Score: 1

    When I ask my grandfather, he says America was built by the descendants of the poor and misfits from Europe who went to the New World in the hope they could have a second chance at life.

  151. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which requires modern germ theory that didn't exist at the time.

  152. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    I'm not american, I'm british and I've lived in mainland europe. Sorry, you were saying?

  153. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by delt0r · · Score: 1

    I think you really missed the boat on this one. Merica is about a lot of people working really hard *for you* so *you* can be rich. Sucks if your the worker however.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  154. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by dave420 · · Score: 1

    They can walk around alone in public just fine. You should stop confusing your fantasies with reality.

  155. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by dave420 · · Score: 1

    You got all of that because I pointed out your argument was based on emotion and ignorance and not fact? Again, you're really not doing yourself any favours here. With each post you show the world just how small-minded and scared you are.

  156. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Your claim makes no sense, but then that's to be expected from xenophobes - you and your ilk don't exactly have a great track record of "logical thinking".

  157. Re: Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. You don't need to know how it works, you just need to know that it does.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  158. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're talking about the same nation which only got involved after Pearl Harbour?

    We're talking about the nation that got involved to make money.

  159. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Everyone can pick their job, but not everyone can afford to pick their preferred job. There's a difference. You are arguing that he's wrong because you misunderstood him.

  160. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.

    Because of abuses after slavery was made illegal, it was illegal to make a worker rent his tools from you, and things like that. Such practices were used to re-enslave the recently unslaved. But slavery is back, in the form of mandatory employer fees. Gotta pay your employer to be able to work for them, and hope to make it back with tips. Cabbies sound like strippers.

  161. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on the sports field, running track etc.

    FTFY.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  162. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Find me a law that isn't shitty they are all written from the point of view that in order to stop a minority of people doing something we have to make it illegal for everybody.

    Putting aside the run-on sentence, are you saying that murder and robbery should only be a bit illegal?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  163. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Emotion? Try reading the facts about what happened on NYE in Cologne. Or maybe keep your head buried up your arse where its nice and warm eh?

  164. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that socialism is the path to hell...

  165. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Ooooh! The American media says so! It must be true! I'm beginning to realise why you keep making these ridiculous claims - you are failing yourself by not educating yourself, causing you to repeatedly make a fool of yourself. Hint: if you want to dispel the "uneducated American" stereotype, stop posting.

  166. Re:Apparently only for ethnic Germans by dave420 · · Score: 1

    So you have absolutely no excuse for regurgitating demonstrated falsehoods and acting like a gibbering xenophobe. You should know better.

  167. sounds like granddad was talking out of his arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical know it all ignorant fuck, it seems. Useally relatively informed people are less likely to presume to know the motives of those they don't know.

    The more I know the more i realise I don't know.

  168. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Everyone can pick their job, but not everyone can afford to pick their preferred job.

    Err..it has been that way since the dawn of time...

    Who said life is fair and that everyone gets to do the job they "want" or would make them happy?

    Sounds like the generation of everyone getting a trophy, and having their self esteem constantly propped up by having no losers, is hitting the workforce....?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  169. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    So the answer is NO, you *don't* have a valid refutation.

    That story is all over the international news, BTW, not American.

    So, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT HAVE A VALID REFUTATION???
    If not, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  170. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    You're either a fucking moron or have some kind of evil agenda.

    You think Der Spiegel is "American media"?

    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

  171. Uber in Montreal by Boutch42 · · Score: 1

    Here in Montréal, Canada, there is a class action suit getting organised following outrageous fees being charged to customers on New Year's Eve (300$ for 20 min ride). They are also in trouble with municipal and provincial authorities because they are operating against the law, taxis are regulated and require permits in Québec. A taxi licence cost upwards of 200K$, so you can guess that taxi drivers are not to keen on Uber...

  172. And here I thought it was Uber lawbreaking by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    That's why Europeans hate Uber, IMHO.

    Easy fix: jail the Uber execs.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  173. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Nobody said life was fair. But people have said that, all else equal, more fair would be better. Why do you want life to be less fair?

  174. Silly Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't find a way to work WITH your market, you'll fail.

  175. This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's very important for consumers to overpay for goods and services, never mind reducing their quality of life, so that suppliers can be guaranteed a profit by their government. Everybody wins. Me, I'm happy to avoid discount stores, online shopping, coupons, and less expensive start-up businesses so that entrenched industries can stay profitable. I think that's the way God wants it.

  176. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    The thing with that business model is that the laws against slavery made that business practice illegal, and it was the cab companies, and others that got the laws against slavery repealed or modified to allow debt working.

    True.

    I just bring it up because people are like "Oh, Uber is taking advantage of it's drivers by having them be 'contractors'!" When in reality, it's still better than most cab drivers are treated.

    At least with Uber, the drivers are actually providing their own tools and setting their own hours, which makes them a step more like a subcontractor for a construction job.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  177. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Yeah, rub it in, why don't you?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  178. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

    Mobility from lower class to upper middle class is more likely to happen in the opportunity-less country they came from. There is plenty of opportunity in the US. Where people like Trump were born into billionaire families, and turned billions into a few more billions. Then talks about his rise from nothing.

    The US spends time/money trying to convince the rest of the world it's the best, then keep everyone out. Why bother to do the two contrary things?

  179. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    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.

    Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them. They didn't come here to find religious freedom, but to fight it.

    And the Irish, Chinese, and others often came over to America because the US was so speparate from the world that a famine in Ireland had nothing to do with the US. Or instability after the abolition of slavery in Russia had no effect on the US. Before globalization, the US was still the new world. You couldn't just fly across the ocean in a few hours, so problems at home were generally limited to local areas, and the US was insulate from local economic problems across the oceans. Not because the US was the best, but because it wasn't where they were.

  180. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by MainCore_01 · · Score: 1

    Yeah right, that and the trillions you stole from almost every other continent.

  181. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the "brain drain" that used to occur when foreign students came to the US to study and settled down to live, meaning we got a lot of the smarter people from less developed countries? Looks like Germany is doing that, partly with smart US citizens.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  182. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Jobs aren't something that the job fairy sprinkles out randomly. A healthy economy will find jobs for people who can work and do useful things. If the workforce gets more people college-educated, jobs will appear for them, and they'll make more, and since this is not a zero-sum game the country will make more as a whole, and collect more taxes at the same rate. (This is true for a healthy economy in the long run. An unhealthy economy won't do that, and even in the healthiest there's going to be a good deal of lag.)

    We've eliminated some of the skilled apprentice fields. I used to see ads for tool and die makers all the time. Currently, we generate gcode for CNC mills to to pretty much what they used to do. The replacement jobs tend to be more technical, and call for college degrees.

    There are still apprentice-based fields, like plumbing, and that isn't going to be eliminated for a long time, but the jobs are fewer.

    The school district I live in has a lot of different high school programs to provide different high school educations for different people. It takes a lot of busses to get them around, but I think it's worth it.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  183. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The US government is one of the oldest on Earth. Since the Constitution was signed, France went through rounds of monarchy vs. republic, Germany turned into a country and went through a monarchy, a shaky republic, a totalitarian regime, and now seems to be a nice stable democracy. I can't think of a country besides Britain that hasn't had a radical change of government since 1792. (Sweden?)

    In addition, the US government has a law system where court decisions can make laws, so we've not only had longer to make written law, but we've built up a vast repository of individual little laws that can conflict between jurisdictions.

    So, if you don't like laws, the US has been in a position to produce more than almost any other country.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  184. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Brazil? Mexico? I believe that all the English-speaking countries of the war were in WWII before Pearl Harbor.

    The US was waging an undeclared shooting war with Germany at least as early as September 1941. We didn't do real well at it at first, to be honest, but we tried. The war was waged by the Navy only, which is probably a good thing considering the state of readiness of the Army's Ground and Air Forces.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  185. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    I just don't vote for holding some people back, to cater to the weakest and lowest common denominator....

    Much like we seem to be doing in our schools these days...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  186. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having worked for a UK competitor for uber I can certainly say all minicab drivers fall into the contractor / self employed role. Hackney cab (iconic London Taxi) drivers are self employed too.

    In reality it's one group of contractors moaning that the other have it better.

    Living outside of zone 1 (approx 4 mile radius) in London means you rarely see a Hackney cab when you are traveling from home to elsewhere. So at a result uber gets the business.

  187. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok. But just why would you want a decent paying Job when there are a thousand people applying for every burger flipping job. Obvious the burger flipping job is where the action and the crowd is. The job may not be decent though. But I figure when the RC was reminded about human decency by the pagans a 1000 years ago, they should have ignored the idea

  188. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them.

    Well, that's kinda what I said. A small minority group trying to be pushy and force others to follow their religion usually results in them being treated poorly (for good reason, people don't like assholes). So they needed to move someplace where they could be the majority and be assholes all they wanted.

    It is a little disturbing how we romanticize the Pilgrims in our history books.

  189. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    We romanticize everything. The south mentioned promotion of slavery as the #1 reason for seceding. Also mentioned was hating states rights. But not a single article of secession mentioned wanting stronger states rights as a reason to secede.

    But these days, people still assert that protecting states rights was a reason for the war.

    And the puritanical puritans are not remembered as such. Yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first Black American pilot is unknown and unremembered. Possibly because the segregationist USA refused to allow him to serve as a pilot, so he fought for the USA under the French flag.

    We refuse to acknowledge things, and romanticize others, to paint a rosy picture of the past. Another reason why old people are conservative. They have lost their minds (mis-remembering the past, and wanting to go back to the simpler times that never existed).

  190. Re:Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    The price gouging model you mean. This is old, really old, not even the previous century the one before the eighteenth century. You drop the prices to put all competitors out of business and then you ramp them up, way way up when ever you can and once competitors are out of business the price stays up permanently and of course what drivers are paid also drops. Other business opportunities you can guarantee will occur, regional extortion, either pay an under table contribution to the company or face a permanent regional price hike. As for new competitors wait till they have invested enough, whilst you hold up your inflated prices to build a war chest and then hugely drop prices to put them out of business and as per 'FLEXIBLE' pricing rules raise them right back up again, which is why price gouging is against the law as being an anti-competitive practice.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  191. Then Müller shouted, "Mein Führer, I Can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There must be order; every thing has its place and every place has its thing; everyone must follow the perfectly legal rules."

  192. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by euroq · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's a stupid fucking waste to pay $55k/year for Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies. You're ignoring the fact that there is a predatory industry in higher education that promises people better lives and suckers them by equating themselves with the other institutions which DO give better lives through higher education, but are in fact a for-profit money-making industry.

    The fact that there's actually a $55k/year industry which teaches Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies is the fucking problem, not the hundreds of thousands of people who are trying to better their lives and live the American dream.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  193. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by euroq · · Score: 1

    There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough.

    This is such BS. If the taxi services are good enough, then peoplewouldn't user Uber. If Uber comes along and they don't offer as "good enough" services, then it won't stay in business. Or at least people are free to choose between the two. You are far beyond reality if you think that Uber didn't provide an amazing extra value of what standard taxis provide. Now, taxis are desperately trying to catch up, the way Blockbuster tried to catch up with Netflix back when it was renting out DVDs by mail. It was too late for Blockbuster, but the taxi unions have the force of government and corruption behind them to stay in power instead of competing by providing better value.

    There are many examples of the "evil" or at least detriment of free trade, but a wholeheartedly and objectively better service (Uber, and the unmentioned Lyft) which is winning in free markets is not an example of evil. It improves the quality of life of the common person who wants transportation. Oh, and I certainly bet it doesn't in some places - but if it doesn't, it's not like Uber is using the power/force of government to interdict its business upon society.

    Sorry if this all sounds biting, but it needed to be said. It just irritates me to no end that Uber and Lyft are some evil corporation trying to make a buck by undermining laws. I NEVER use a taxi anymore because the quality of transportation in so many ways are so inferior. Taxis don't give a shit if you call and need them soon. There's no guarantee that they will be there, no map that says where they are, and no verification of their service before or during the transportation. Have you ever heard of someone getting attacked by ab Uber driver? Yes, you have - there was a famous case in India. There was ONE incident which made worldwide headlines. Do you realize how many times people get attacked in Taxis, or their lives are endangered? Do you think my friend who was robbed at gunpoint ever made headlines? No, you didn't. I personally have had a $20 bill stolen out of my hands by a taxi driver. Yeah sure this is all anecdotal evidence, but it really happened. That shit doesn't happen in Uber or Lyft. They provide a service which is cash free, safe(r) due to the electronic monitoring involved, faster, and cheaper.

    So yeah, I'm really pissed that people say it's just a taxi service without paying their dues. It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  194. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by euroq · · Score: 1

    What exactly is the "shit" you speak of? At least in the US, Uber and Lyft are miles ahead of service and value to transportation than taxis. Do you mean safety standards? It's certainly safer to use an Uber instead of an anonymized taxi, it's cheaper, and the safety record (i.e. crashes, robberies, etc.) is better.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  195. Re: Respect for the law for everyone, not just the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nicely done Dave!

  196. Re:Europe, land of the sheep and chickenshit by umghhh · · Score: 1

    It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.

    I had a good laugh at that.