At a minimum, stupid people should be shamed for being stupid.
That woman needs to be shamed for being stupid, but more importantly, for denouncing someone out of the norm to the authorities.
People used to do that in German occupied countries during WWII: they tipped off the Gestapo that this-or-that person looked or acted Jewish, or didn't seem to like the occupants, etc. That woman is as ugly as the WWII rats - and I might add, the authorities of today are increasingly similar to those of that era as well.
This is what makes me retch, not her stupidity.
"if you see something say something" Yeah, we had too much of that even before the terrorism terror. While when real crimes come along, it's "Don't Snitch"
As a mathematician from MIT, I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
Math, in and of itself, hasn't ever harmed anyone.
Well, that's not quite true. It has driven some to insanity and suicide but I've never heard of any algorithm to make a plane blow up. And, really, if you think too much about infinity, the concept, it can drive you insane - more so if you're one of the first to really contemplate it and quantify it.
As a mathematician, how can you say that? You of all people should understand the dangers. This guy could have waited until the plane was midair, then divided something by zero, and the whole thing would have blown up.
The problem wasn't that the woman was an idiot, every village has one. The problem is everyone else dog piling on. All it would take is for one person to say "it's just math" and for that to be enough to shut the panic down. Instead, we too frequently hand the leader role to whoever is most terrified and anyone who isn't terrified clearly doesn't understand the gravity of the situation (never mind that there really isn't a situation).
yeah, but the truth is that any sort of alarm has to be followed up thoroughly, not just the evidence causing the alarm. Imagine if they had ignored the woman's report and by complete coincidence the plane had blown up in midair from any other cause. be a lot of stammering and finger pointing.
I've been finding myself wondering about this lately when it comes to a number of people I know.
Seriously, we need some way to send these people back to 5th grade. It's astonishing. Maybe 3rd grade. Force them to take classes until they at least graduate the 8th grade. Keep them out of society as long as it takes for them to grasp 8th grade-level reading, writing, and maths. I really don't think it's too much to ask.
The only problem my proposal has is that I keep coming back around to who, exactly, should be in charge of determining when they've completed an 8th grade education....
Can we bring back poll tests? I don't care if in practice that's "racist." It probably will be in effect "racist." We need to solve the root issue here. The moment we decided "racism!" was an adequate answer, we failed the entire basis of our society. Tell me why people with darker skin color might have a problem passing a short exam before voting. That will give us a good idea of what we really need to fix.
Something must be done. I do not want to live in a world where solving a simple system of equations or engaging in very basic linear algebra to find an answer constitutes genius. Yet here we are. It's 2016, and I can't even.
well, let's make parallels with the muslim kid makes fake bomb from clock story: Obviously this was a deliberate hoax, the guy was writing math deliberately knowing that it would panic the other passengers with a legitimate fear of terrorism, and thereby make a whole proMuslim media event out of this. This was no genius who invented new equations like the liberal press portrays him, he was merely reusing old equations on a new sheet of paper.
If you read down a bit on that page you come to this:
The reason the digits are more commonly known as "Arabic numerals" in Europe and the Americas is that they were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabic-speakers of North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco. Arabs, on the other hand, call the system "Hindu numerals",[18][19] referring to their origin in India.
Also, I was just joking about questioning what "2" is, the question brought that song to mind.
Why the fuck is this "Flamebait?" This exactly how it should work. NO one is forcing anyone to use Uber. All this does is eliminate competition and protect cab company margins, and ensure that the number of tourists willing to visit Austin (that do any research at all) will plummet.
Hell I had a job offer from an Austin company and my reply was just today "I have no interest in living in a town where if I need a ride I have to call Yellow Cab. Please do not contact me again."
And if you got a job offer from Uber you could just reply "I have no interest in working for a company where if I need a job I have to get fingerprinted. Please do not contact me again."
I live in Austin and voted prop 1. Why? Because the city government is out of control here in general, and even though I am not a U/L user, I wanted to send that message. One thing about prop 1 that didn't get a lot of attention was how convoluted the damn language on the ballot was. One local TV station did some reporting on it.
prop 1: "Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations."
Yea, how many folks stood in front of the ballot box and scratched their heads on that one.
Besides which, there's a very high probability that this biometric data will eventually be stolen by some hacker, or leaked via an insider. Then criminals will have your biometric data, and won't that be fun?
Or they could steal the driver's car. Then they'd be joyriding around and wouldn't that be fun? Best he not have a car.
I am very much a libertarian sort of person, but I don't agree with Uber and Lyft on this one. That they should spend so much money to avoid conducting the most basic level of a serious background check makes me wonder if the are trying for willful blindness. A bogus background check just asks you to say who you are, and then they check your name. By requiring fingerprinting, Austin is helping to insure that individuals aren't side-stepping a criminal past.
It is fairly easy to get fake credentials such as name and SS#, and pass yourself off as someone else. Admittedly, someone could fake or alter their fingerprints, but it is more durable. It is also less intrusive than a DNA check, which I would oppose, even though it might catch a few more people than fingerprints alone.
I don't believe there should be unlimited "liberty" for those who are going to have another person alone in their vehicle, for hire.
"Against the public will" is the basis of freedom. What Rights are violated by a business not doing background checks? Who is the victim? This is bad law run amok. If you don't like their policies don't use it, don't cry to the government to be a goon and bully. Absurd.
Make no mistake, this had nothing to do with "safety" on the party of the City Council. This was about control, political connections, and Austin getting a taste of Uber and Lyfts cash. It's a classic shake down.
It used to be the heart of town. Don't tell me this town ain't got no heart
You just gotta poke around
No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.
You think you got it bad, in my town the government has set up big colored lights at the corners of streets and is telling us drivers we need to stop when the red light is on or some such overly complex system, typical government regulatory bureaucracy. A big giveaway to the people who make those lights. What a crock. What right does the government have to interfere in my right to move from place to place peaceably? I can judge perfectly well if I can get through the intersection before the other guy, certainly better than some incompetent corrupt lifetime civil servant in his posh office with his union and his pension.
So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?
I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?
And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?
Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?
Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?
What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?
First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?
The last time I had a fingerprinting done in Texas for a background check, I had to go to the local police department and pay them cash (only cash, and no change given) for a police officer to print me. They had to stamp it to verify that the prints were from the person on the ID, so you can't print yourself and "borrow" someone else's fingers. The fee wasn't huge, but it was a fee paid to the local city. There was a separate fee to the state for the actual background check.
Do you know what the process is for fingerprint background checks, or were you just assuming it wasn't a revenue source?
Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting?
That's the standard practice, but is illegal. Requiring an employee to pay to work was outlawed in the 1800s, as part of Reconstruction. The laws have since been loosened, bot early post-slavery practices included "hiring" a person at $1 to work a field, and charging him a $2 fee to work the field. Then, once in debt, require he work off the debt. It resulted in permenant indentures servitude, which is more commonly called slavery. So outlawing slavery didn't work, and laws were put in place, especially in the south (and some federal laws) that ban an employer from requiring costs to work. They are not commonly applied, but for someone like Uber, I'm sure the crowd here would have no qualms equating Uber to slavery, and holding Uber to laws that are never used these days.
There goes my idea of the job mortgage. As long as you can keep up the monthly payments you can keep your job, but if you miss the you get evicted from employment.
Since background checks are paid for at a flat-fee rate in most places, the entire thing is moot. Strange that neither company has problems with it up here in Canada, at least not yet. But the laws are changing, because they both want to be a taxi company and here taxi companies are required to have background checks including criminal background checks before you can get your full chauffeurs license.
Make no mistake, this had nothing to do with "safety" on the party of the City Council. This was about control, political connections, and Austin getting a taste of Uber and Lyfts cash. It's a classic shake down. Several City Council members have close ties to the local Taxi companies, who were getting their clocks cleaned.
Taxi Cabs have enjoyed a public monopoly and regulated shortages for decades, The barrier to entry is very high in the Taxi market. The city made lots of money from taxes and fees and regulated what taxis went when and where. Along come Uber and Lyft. they don't play Austin's game.
Before Uber and Lyft, it was very difficult to find a cab at 2AM downtown. There weren't enough for all the partiers. With Uber and Lyft in the market, drunk driving incidents have gone down and people were very satisfied with Uber and Lyft's service. So what happens when a business is making money and has happy customers? Yep, the politicians step in to fuck it up. Austin wants to control prices, wants fees, and wants to limit the number of drivers.
So now Uber and Lyft leave and more people will stumble to their cars at 2am and drive drunk, More people will drive their own vehicles downtown, taking up parking and clogging up traffic. The cost of getting a ride will go up and service will decline.
It's the Detroit model where special interests win out over common sense.
Well, if one believes in the free market, etc. then it will respond to this trespass upon its territory by some entrepreneur who doesn't mind having the drivers being fingerprinted going ahead to open his own business in the town to fill the need and make the profit and serve the people and so on and so on.
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also?
I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted?
Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there.
Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others.
Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part
of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the
world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.
Last time I was in Israel, decades ago, they had things called "shareoots" which were basically private minivans who would act as airport shuttles or the like, loading up half a dozen random passengers and delivering them door to door.
Slashdot Mirror
At a minimum, stupid people should be shamed for being stupid.
That woman needs to be shamed for being stupid, but more importantly, for denouncing someone out of the norm to the authorities.
People used to do that in German occupied countries during WWII: they tipped off the Gestapo that this-or-that person looked or acted Jewish, or didn't seem to like the occupants, etc. That woman is as ugly as the WWII rats - and I might add, the authorities of today are increasingly similar to those of that era as well.
This is what makes me retch, not her stupidity.
"if you see something say something" Yeah, we had too much of that even before the terrorism terror. While when real crimes come along, it's "Don't Snitch"
As a mathematician from MIT, I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
Math, in and of itself, hasn't ever harmed anyone.
Well, that's not quite true. It has driven some to insanity and suicide but I've never heard of any algorithm to make a plane blow up. And, really, if you think too much about infinity, the concept, it can drive you insane - more so if you're one of the first to really contemplate it and quantify it.
As a mathematician, how can you say that? You of all people should understand the dangers. This guy could have waited until the plane was midair, then divided something by zero, and the whole thing would have blown up.
Trump 2016
you'll never catch him writing a bunch of equations. he's a real American
The problem wasn't that the woman was an idiot, every village has one. The problem is everyone else dog piling on. All it would take is for one person to say "it's just math" and for that to be enough to shut the panic down. Instead, we too frequently hand the leader role to whoever is most terrified and anyone who isn't terrified clearly doesn't understand the gravity of the situation (never mind that there really isn't a situation).
yeah, but the truth is that any sort of alarm has to be followed up thoroughly, not just the evidence causing the alarm. Imagine if they had ignored the woman's report and by complete coincidence the plane had blown up in midair from any other cause. be a lot of stammering and finger pointing.
We need to ramp up reverse retaliation on stupid people 100x fold to stop shit like this
the fact that she can hide behind anonymity is annoying.
So, it was an economist writing down a differential equation over a tray table.
An economist -- yeah, as an engineer, it would have been my ethical duty to report this to the authorities.
An economist working math? Good Lord, the guy really was dangerous.
What did she do, skip elementary school . . . ?
I've been finding myself wondering about this lately when it comes to a number of people I know.
Seriously, we need some way to send these people back to 5th grade. It's astonishing. Maybe 3rd grade. Force them to take classes until they at least graduate the 8th grade. Keep them out of society as long as it takes for them to grasp 8th grade-level reading, writing, and maths. I really don't think it's too much to ask.
The only problem my proposal has is that I keep coming back around to who, exactly, should be in charge of determining when they've completed an 8th grade education....
Can we bring back poll tests? I don't care if in practice that's "racist." It probably will be in effect "racist." We need to solve the root issue here. The moment we decided "racism!" was an adequate answer, we failed the entire basis of our society. Tell me why people with darker skin color might have a problem passing a short exam before voting. That will give us a good idea of what we really need to fix.
Something must be done. I do not want to live in a world where solving a simple system of equations or engaging in very basic linear algebra to find an answer constitutes genius. Yet here we are. It's 2016, and I can't even.
well, let's make parallels with the muslim kid makes fake bomb from clock story:
Obviously this was a deliberate hoax, the guy was writing math deliberately knowing that it would panic the other passengers with a legitimate fear of terrorism, and thereby make a whole proMuslim media event out of this. This was no genius who invented new equations like the liberal press portrays him, he was merely reusing old equations on a new sheet of paper.
If you read down a bit on that page you come to this: The reason the digits are more commonly known as "Arabic numerals" in Europe and the Americas is that they were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabic-speakers of North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco. Arabs, on the other hand, call the system "Hindu numerals",[18][19] referring to their origin in India. Also, I was just joking about questioning what "2" is, the question brought that song to mind.
Officer, that Arabic man just gave me the digit!
Eh. I expect she didn't KNOW it was math and assumed it was Arabbic, because, you know, squiggly lines and the state of American education.
She was right! Numbers ARE Arabic.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Why the fuck is this "Flamebait?" This exactly how it should work. NO one is forcing anyone to use Uber. All this does is eliminate competition and protect cab company margins, and ensure that the number of tourists willing to visit Austin (that do any research at all) will plummet.
Hell I had a job offer from an Austin company and my reply was just today "I have no interest in living in a town where if I need a ride I have to call Yellow Cab. Please do not contact me again."
And if you got a job offer from Uber you could just reply "I have no interest in working for a company where if I need a job I have to get fingerprinted. Please do not contact me again."
I live in Austin and voted prop 1. Why? Because the city government is out of control here in general, and even though I am not a U/L user, I wanted to send that message. One thing about prop 1 that didn't get a lot of attention was how convoluted the damn language on the ballot was. One local TV station did some reporting on it.
prop 1: "Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations."
Yea, how many folks stood in front of the ballot box and scratched their heads on that one.
http://www.kvue.com/news/local...
The sad thing is you know there's some lifer in an office somewhere saying "I don't see how I could make it any clearer"
"Current taxi drivers did not have to submit to fingerprints either."
This hasn't been true in a very long time. The only new thing is the prints are now going to be checked nationally, not statewide.
Hell, my daughter drove a pedicab starting in 2010 and had to get fingerprinted.
Ha, government incompetence. For a pedicab, you should be footprinted.
Besides which, there's a very high probability that this biometric data will eventually be stolen by some hacker, or leaked via an insider. Then criminals will have your biometric data, and won't that be fun?
Or they could steal the driver's car. Then they'd be joyriding around and wouldn't that be fun? Best he not have a car.
I am very much a libertarian sort of person, but I don't agree with Uber and Lyft on this one. That they should spend so much money to avoid conducting the most basic level of a serious background check makes me wonder if the are trying for willful blindness. A bogus background check just asks you to say who you are, and then they check your name. By requiring fingerprinting, Austin is helping to insure that individuals aren't side-stepping a criminal past.
It is fairly easy to get fake credentials such as name and SS#, and pass yourself off as someone else. Admittedly, someone could fake or alter their fingerprints, but it is more durable. It is also less intrusive than a DNA check, which I would oppose, even though it might catch a few more people than fingerprints alone.
I don't believe there should be unlimited "liberty" for those who are going to have another person alone in their vehicle, for hire.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
"Against the public will" is the basis of freedom. What Rights are violated by a business not doing background checks? Who is the victim? This is bad law run amok. If you don't like their policies don't use it, don't cry to the government to be a goon and bully. Absurd.
The libertarian creed: http://rlv.zcache.com/if_you_d...
because they're already short drivers. .
Well that's the problem. They can't see over the dashboard. Give them a thick pillow or a phonebook (google it, kids) or something
It used to be the heart of town.
Don't tell me this town ain't got no heart
You just gotta poke around
No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.
You think you got it bad, in my town the government has set up big colored lights at the corners of streets and is telling us drivers we need to stop when the red light is on or some such overly complex system, typical government regulatory bureaucracy. A big giveaway to the people who make those lights. What a crock. What right does the government have to interfere in my right to move from place to place peaceably? I can judge perfectly well if I can get through the intersection before the other guy, certainly better than some incompetent corrupt lifetime civil servant in his posh office with his union and his pension.
So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?
I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?
And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?
Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?
Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?
What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?
Well, after all, what could go wrong? http://www.flipps.com/v/7536b8...
First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?
The last time I had a fingerprinting done in Texas for a background check, I had to go to the local police department and pay them cash (only cash, and no change given) for a police officer to print me. They had to stamp it to verify that the prints were from the person on the ID, so you can't print yourself and "borrow" someone else's fingers. The fee wasn't huge, but it was a fee paid to the local city. There was a separate fee to the state for the actual background check. Do you know what the process is for fingerprint background checks, or were you just assuming it wasn't a revenue source?
Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting?
That's the standard practice, but is illegal. Requiring an employee to pay to work was outlawed in the 1800s, as part of Reconstruction. The laws have since been loosened, bot early post-slavery practices included "hiring" a person at $1 to work a field, and charging him a $2 fee to work the field. Then, once in debt, require he work off the debt. It resulted in permenant indentures servitude, which is more commonly called slavery. So outlawing slavery didn't work, and laws were put in place, especially in the south (and some federal laws) that ban an employer from requiring costs to work. They are not commonly applied, but for someone like Uber, I'm sure the crowd here would have no qualms equating Uber to slavery, and holding Uber to laws that are never used these days.
There goes my idea of the job mortgage. As long as you can keep up the monthly payments you can keep your job, but if you miss the you get evicted from employment.
Since background checks are paid for at a flat-fee rate in most places, the entire thing is moot. Strange that neither company has problems with it up here in Canada, at least not yet. But the laws are changing, because they both want to be a taxi company and here taxi companies are required to have background checks including criminal background checks before you can get your full chauffeurs license.
Uber and Calgary couldn't get it together. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
They already do perform background checks.
Make no mistake, this had nothing to do with "safety" on the party of the City Council. This was about control, political connections, and Austin getting a taste of Uber and Lyfts cash. It's a classic shake down. Several City Council members have close ties to the local Taxi companies, who were getting their clocks cleaned.
Taxi Cabs have enjoyed a public monopoly and regulated shortages for decades, The barrier to entry is very high in the Taxi market. The city made lots of money from taxes and fees and regulated what taxis went when and where. Along come Uber and Lyft. they don't play Austin's game.
Before Uber and Lyft, it was very difficult to find a cab at 2AM downtown. There weren't enough for all the partiers. With Uber and Lyft in the market, drunk driving incidents have gone down and people were very satisfied with Uber and Lyft's service. So what happens when a business is making money and has happy customers? Yep, the politicians step in to fuck it up. Austin wants to control prices, wants fees, and wants to limit the number of drivers.
So now Uber and Lyft leave and more people will stumble to their cars at 2am and drive drunk, More people will drive their own vehicles downtown, taking up parking and clogging up traffic. The cost of getting a ride will go up and service will decline.
It's the Detroit model where special interests win out over common sense.
Well, if one believes in the free market, etc. then it will respond to this trespass upon its territory by some entrepreneur who doesn't mind having the drivers being fingerprinted going ahead to open his own business in the town to fill the need and make the profit and serve the people and so on and so on.
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also? I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted? Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there. Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others. Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones ;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.
Last time I was in Israel, decades ago, they had things called "shareoots" which were basically private minivans who would act as airport shuttles or the like, loading up half a dozen random passengers and delivering them door to door.