Explain, then, exactly how the central taxi cab company is not like PickupPal?
The taxicab parent company makes money directly from the taxicab operators (whether based on a fixed or percentage based fee). PickupPal receives no money from the driver or passenger.
As a car owner, can I just go into the taxi business by "arranging to drive carpools" over the internet,
But then you would be directly receiving the money from the passenger, which is analogous to a taxicab company, vs. the way PickupPal operates.
If their drivers are independent franchises who pay fixed fees, and they don't drive stretch limos, how are they different from me and my Caddy using PickupPal to drive "carpoolers" around the city all day?
Again, they would be directly taking money from the passengers for the trip, rather than just providing a means of communication.
All of this seems moot, though. Another poster, Atlantis-Rising, pointed out the exact rule to me. The rule does not allow anybody to arrange transportation if there is payment involved, even if the payment is only between the driver and passenger.
section 2(2) of the Public Vehicles Act, which is cited in the Board's decision:
"No person shall arrange or offer to arrange the transportation of passengers by means of a public vehicle operated by another person unless that other person is the holder of an operating license authorizing that other person to perform transportation."
Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.
Does this remind you of anything else? Oh, yes, a taxi company (or bus company, take your pick)...
The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride. PickupPal does not receive any money from the passenger or driver. Are they going to fine the phone company when I call my friend up and we arrange a road trip where he agrees to pay for half the gas? What about the message boards at colleges where drivers and passengers arrange for long trips back home? Sue the college?
Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.
Between the driver and passenger, which is a private transaction that has nothing to do with PickupPal. It is not a transaction between the driver, passenger, and 'arranging' entity (taxicab company). Now, if you want to go after a driver because he is accepting money for a ride without having a taxi license, then go ahead. But going after PickupPal is just absurd.
There probably isn't any study done for president+vice-president stories, but I agree that it seems there were far more stories about Palin than about Biden. And I think this might offer another explanation as to why certain candidates received more coverage than others. Biden and McCain have been in the US Senate for decades. Everyone knows everything about them already. What more is there to print? Obama and Palin were new to the national media, so they found a lot more 'new' information to print. Just my theory.
The guy in your article sounds like a completely biased, self-centered asshole. He admits that he is in a precinct with a high turnover:
The system may become clogged with newly-registered voters, especially in high-turnover student housing areas (like my precinct).
But then he assumes (with absolutely no evidence), that the problems were caused by "a massive voter purge" by the Republicans.
The watchers that come to observe him don't cause any problems, and one of them even comments on how hard he is working and offers the unemployed guy a job. But the little shit hates Republicans ("...GOP's voter suppression army...") sooooo much that he says he would never work for them!
Instead of taking time in his article to investigate why so many voters didn't show up on the voter rolls (must be those darn Republicans!), he spends half the time talking about how hard he is working, and how he beat the Republicans.
I have to fight to restore the voting rights of innocent citizens who were deviously struck from the registration list.
...I am working like a demon,
Everything is now revolving around me.
(yes, he actually says this)
I am working at an incredible pace.
In a story about bias in the media, you have given us about the best example of biased 'reporting' I have ever seen.
Are we talking minutes? If so, then the battery will provide enough of a buffer while it spins up to speed. If we are talking hours, then this would be a major problem.
Why would you have it idle in an electric hybrid? When the battery gets to X% of charge, switch on and charge the batteries. When the battery reaches 100% charge, shut off.
no one is being discriminated against, because everyone has the same right to marry someone... of their own ethnicity.
But in that case, a black woman is treated differently (can marry black man/can't marry white man) than a white woman (can marry white man/can't marry black man). A gay man can marry the same type of person (woman) that I can, and we are both restricted from the same type of person (men). In what way have we been treated differently?
50 years from now, opposition to gay marriage will look just as bigoted as our forebears' views look today. You know this is true.
I'm sure future generations will wonder what the hell the big deal was. This generation is much more comfortable with gays than previous generations. In the course of just eight years, California has already gone from 61% opposed to gay marriage (proposition 22 in 2000) to 52% opposed (proposition 8, 2008). And I'm sure the next generation will be even more wiling to allow gay marriage.
I think the gay rights group has taken the wrong track with screaming that it is a civil rights issue and that people against it are just a bunch of bigoted homophobes. All I saw were ads that used the words 'discrimination', 'wrong', and other inflammatory words. I think a better track would have been to show pictures of the happy newly married couples, and talk about how great an institution marriage is, and that we should encourage as many people as possible to try it.
And Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown abusing their powers trying to shove it down everyone's throats isn't helping there cause one damn bit. Most polls showed the 'No' vote winning until the video of Newsom smugly saying "Whether you like it or not, it's gonna happen!"
three states passed constitutional amendments making gays second-class citizens with fewer rights.
Incorrect. Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays wanted a new right, i.e., marrying someone of the same sex. Now, I have no problem with gay marriage, but this argument that I've heard non-stop for months on TV is asinine.
And before someone tries to respond with a 'But they can't marry the person they want!', just realize that everyone has the exact same restrictions. Since I can't marry a 2nd wife, does that mean that polygamist are the new '2nd class citizen'?
...but the banks allowed people to take out 'no documentation' loans. Therefore, they knowingly were giving out loans that people wouldn't be able to afford in a few years, and they share equal responsibility.
"We don't need any paystubs or any other proof of income from you. Just tell us how much you 'make' , and we'll get you that loan."
My local paper did a little research into my neighborhood about a year ago. It had about twice the rate of subprime loans as the rest of my county. Census data indicated that the average income in my neighborhood was around 40k. The average 'stated' income on subprime loan documents in the same neighborhood? Around 90k.
Seriously, you think people that make 90k don't have some type of documentation that shows they make that much? Banks aren't that stupid.
Careful with that, because I had a co-worker who actually did this with a laptop (his dog peed on it). He left it in for a while, then turned the oven off. He left the laptop in to cool down. His wife came home and thought, "Hey, I'll make a frozen pizza for dinner! I better preheat the oven..."
I think you can all figure out how the story ends.
(I wonder if any of you with US driving licence had anything close to those 20 hours...)
Wow, 20 whole hours! Yeah, we are so stupid here in the US that we just throw teenagers in the car with no training. Sheesh.
Oh, and when it comes to speeding: in my country almost nobody passes driving test for the first time...and here I am, passed it on the first go...even though I did short burst of ~35mph in 25mph area.
So, you broke the speed limit, and still passed? Doesn't seem like it's that tough of a test if you can speed and still pass.
Your assumption that a 16-18 year old can't be responsible enough to drive is just that, an assumption. There are a lot of kids who are more than capable of handling that responsibility at that age....My personal, non-scientific, talking-out-of-my-ass opinion is that it's not the 16-18 year olds you have to worry about, it's the 18-22 year olds that cause more trouble,
In the rural area where I'm from, it's not uncommon for kids as young as 10 to drive cars and trucks on back roads and on their farms, and you never hear of them getting into accidents.
Well, yeah, there are no other cars around to hit or worry about.
Now, whether the fact that the teenagers have such a high rate of accidents might be due to their lack of driving experience more than their age. Maybe a more limited driving permit at an early age (daytime, no passengers, limited allowed driving range, etc.) might gradually build up their skill and confidence, while also addressing some of the issues brought up in this thread (jobs, after-school activities, etc.)
Not a necessity, especially if it is putting young kids on the road that aren't old enough to handle the responsibilities of driving. Or just get a job close enough to ride your bike to.
extracurricular activities...
That take place at the school that they are already at. And I'm pretty sure that buses generally take kids to and from school.
to feed themselves
How far do they have to drive to reach the fridge?
to take the burden off parents who work 2-4 hours away by picking up their younger siblings at school/daycare.
But those kids can't drive themselves to school at age 15, or age 14, etc. Why do they need to drive themselves to school once they hit 16? What has changed so much that we need to endanger teenagers and others on the road with drivers that are too young?
Accelerating from 50 MPH to 80 MPH in something like a Civic is going to take you around 5 seconds (based on 0-60 in 10 seconds). In 5 seconds, you have already covered 160 feet more than the semi, and they don't get much longer than around 120 feet (a Turnpike Double is two 53-foot trailers). So you've already passed the semi by the time you hit 80 MPH.
So many people on this board are trying to justify inexperienced teenagers driving faster than 80 MPH for 'safety', yet every example given is laughable.
When I was younger, I use to drive fast (85+) in my old 4-cylinder Mustang (yes, they made four-banger Mustangs), but I'm probably lucky that my wimpy engine limited my speed.
There is no good reason to drive so fast, especially if you are still learning to drive.
There is actually no reason to let 16 year-olds drive. They are still in high school. Why the hell do they need to drive somewhere? They still have parents to drive them places (since they still live at home). I think a smarter law would be 17 years old to get a learner's permit. Then 18 years old to get a regular license, when you are leaving home, and a legal adult.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain, then, exactly how the central taxi cab company is not like PickupPal?
The taxicab parent company makes money directly from the taxicab operators (whether based on a fixed or percentage based fee). PickupPal receives no money from the driver or passenger.
As a car owner, can I just go into the taxi business by "arranging to drive carpools" over the internet,
But then you would be directly receiving the money from the passenger, which is analogous to a taxicab company, vs. the way PickupPal operates.
If their drivers are independent franchises who pay fixed fees, and they don't drive stretch limos, how are they different from me and my Caddy using PickupPal to drive "carpoolers" around the city all day?
Again, they would be directly taking money from the passengers for the trip, rather than just providing a means of communication.
All of this seems moot, though. Another poster, Atlantis-Rising, pointed out the exact rule to me. The rule does not allow anybody to arrange transportation if there is payment involved, even if the payment is only between the driver and passenger.
section 2(2) of the Public Vehicles Act, which is cited in the Board's decision:
"No person shall arrange or offer to arrange the transportation of passengers by means of a public vehicle operated by another person unless that other person is the holder of an operating license authorizing that other person to perform transportation."
Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.
Does this remind you of anything else? Oh, yes, a taxi company (or bus company, take your pick)...
The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride. PickupPal does not receive any money from the passenger or driver. Are they going to fine the phone company when I call my friend up and we arrange a road trip where he agrees to pay for half the gas? What about the message boards at colleges where drivers and passengers arrange for long trips back home? Sue the college?
Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.
Between the driver and passenger, which is a private transaction that has nothing to do with PickupPal. It is not a transaction between the driver, passenger, and 'arranging' entity (taxicab company). Now, if you want to go after a driver because he is accepting money for a ride without having a taxi license, then go ahead. But going after PickupPal is just absurd.
Contributions to it are be state and federal-tax free...
The money you put in, is of course, taxed,...
Contributions = The money you put in
I think you may have contradicted yourself.
There probably isn't any study done for president+vice-president stories, but I agree that it seems there were far more stories about Palin than about Biden. And I think this might offer another explanation as to why certain candidates received more coverage than others. Biden and McCain have been in the US Senate for decades. Everyone knows everything about them already. What more is there to print? Obama and Palin were new to the national media, so they found a lot more 'new' information to print. Just my theory.
The guy in your article sounds like a completely biased, self-centered asshole. He admits that he is in a precinct with a high turnover:
The system may become clogged with newly-registered voters, especially in high-turnover student housing areas (like my precinct).
But then he assumes (with absolutely no evidence), that the problems were caused by "a massive voter purge" by the Republicans.
The watchers that come to observe him don't cause any problems, and one of them even comments on how hard he is working and offers the unemployed guy a job. But the little shit hates Republicans ("...GOP's voter suppression army...") sooooo much that he says he would never work for them!
Instead of taking time in his article to investigate why so many voters didn't show up on the voter rolls (must be those darn Republicans!), he spends half the time talking about how hard he is working, and how he beat the Republicans.
I have to fight to restore the voting rights of innocent citizens who were deviously struck from the registration list.
...I am working like a demon,
Everything is now revolving around me.
(yes, he actually says this)
I am working at an incredible pace.
In a story about bias in the media, you have given us about the best example of biased 'reporting' I have ever seen.
And you base this on...?
Are we talking minutes? If so, then the battery will provide enough of a buffer while it spins up to speed. If we are talking hours, then this would be a major problem.
Why would you have it idle in an electric hybrid? When the battery gets to X% of charge, switch on and charge the batteries. When the battery reaches 100% charge, shut off.
This is more than I make in my 'regular' job.
You must be new here.
Welcome to /., where everybody needs to get laid.
no one is being discriminated against, because everyone has the same right to marry someone ... of their own ethnicity.
But in that case, a black woman is treated differently (can marry black man/can't marry white man) than a white woman (can marry white man/can't marry black man). A gay man can marry the same type of person (woman) that I can, and we are both restricted from the same type of person (men). In what way have we been treated differently?
50 years from now, opposition to gay marriage will look just as bigoted as our forebears' views look today. You know this is true.
I'm sure future generations will wonder what the hell the big deal was. This generation is much more comfortable with gays than previous generations. In the course of just eight years, California has already gone from 61% opposed to gay marriage (proposition 22 in 2000) to 52% opposed (proposition 8, 2008). And I'm sure the next generation will be even more wiling to allow gay marriage.
I think the gay rights group has taken the wrong track with screaming that it is a civil rights issue and that people against it are just a bunch of bigoted homophobes. All I saw were ads that used the words 'discrimination', 'wrong', and other inflammatory words. I think a better track would have been to show pictures of the happy newly married couples, and talk about how great an institution marriage is, and that we should encourage as many people as possible to try it.
And Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown abusing their powers trying to shove it down everyone's throats isn't helping there cause one damn bit. Most polls showed the 'No' vote winning until the video of Newsom smugly saying "Whether you like it or not, it's gonna happen!"
three states passed constitutional amendments making gays second-class citizens with fewer rights.
Incorrect. Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays wanted a new right, i.e., marrying someone of the same sex. Now, I have no problem with gay marriage, but this argument that I've heard non-stop for months on TV is asinine.
And before someone tries to respond with a 'But they can't marry the person they want!', just realize that everyone has the exact same restrictions. Since I can't marry a 2nd wife, does that mean that polygamist are the new '2nd class citizen'?
Angry responses in 3... 2... 1...
What, you think Obama beating McCain is going to be news to anybody? He's had this thing locked up ever since the stock market went to crap.
You only need to protect the occupants and sensitive equipment. You can just put the ramscoop out ahead of the magnetic protection field.
Yeah, because you can just go out and print another batch of gold bars like you can $20 bills...
Don't let Microsoft get wind of this. They might make it a requirement for running Windows 7.
...but the banks allowed people to take out 'no documentation' loans. Therefore, they knowingly were giving out loans that people wouldn't be able to afford in a few years, and they share equal responsibility.
"We don't need any paystubs or any other proof of income from you. Just tell us how much you 'make' , and we'll get you that loan."
My local paper did a little research into my neighborhood about a year ago. It had about twice the rate of subprime loans as the rest of my county. Census data indicated that the average income in my neighborhood was around 40k. The average 'stated' income on subprime loan documents in the same neighborhood? Around 90k.
Seriously, you think people that make 90k don't have some type of documentation that shows they make that much? Banks aren't that stupid.
Careful with that, because I had a co-worker who actually did this with a laptop (his dog peed on it). He left it in for a while, then turned the oven off. He left the laptop in to cool down. His wife came home and thought, "Hey, I'll make a frozen pizza for dinner! I better preheat the oven..."
I think you can all figure out how the story ends.
Well, if they were smart they would change it to:
"Quality is job 5.0!"
(I wonder if any of you with US driving licence had anything close to those 20 hours...)
Wow, 20 whole hours! Yeah, we are so stupid here in the US that we just throw teenagers in the car with no training. Sheesh.
Oh, and when it comes to speeding: in my country almost nobody passes driving test for the first time...and here I am, passed it on the first go...even though I did short burst of ~35mph in 25mph area.
So, you broke the speed limit, and still passed? Doesn't seem like it's that tough of a test if you can speed and still pass.
Your assumption that a 16-18 year old can't be responsible enough to drive is just that, an assumption. There are a lot of kids who are more than capable of handling that responsibility at that age....My personal, non-scientific, talking-out-of-my-ass opinion is that it's not the 16-18 year olds you have to worry about, it's the 18-22 year olds that cause more trouble,
You are definitely "talking-out-your-ass". Teenage drivers have three times the fatal accident rate of 20-70 year olds (page 17 of the PDF). It is not just an assumption, it is a well know fact.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1007/2/83596.0001.001.pdf
In the rural area where I'm from, it's not uncommon for kids as young as 10 to drive cars and trucks on back roads and on their farms, and you never hear of them getting into accidents.
Well, yeah, there are no other cars around to hit or worry about.
Now, whether the fact that the teenagers have such a high rate of accidents might be due to their lack of driving experience more than their age. Maybe a more limited driving permit at an early age (daytime, no passengers, limited allowed driving range, etc.) might gradually build up their skill and confidence, while also addressing some of the issues brought up in this thread (jobs, after-school activities, etc.)
part time jobs
Not a necessity, especially if it is putting young kids on the road that aren't old enough to handle the responsibilities of driving. Or just get a job close enough to ride your bike to.
extracurricular activities...
That take place at the school that they are already at. And I'm pretty sure that buses generally take kids to and from school.
to feed themselves
How far do they have to drive to reach the fridge?
to take the burden off parents who work 2-4 hours away by picking up their younger siblings at school/daycare.
But those kids can't drive themselves to school at age 15, or age 14, etc. Why do they need to drive themselves to school once they hit 16? What has changed so much that we need to endanger teenagers and others on the road with drivers that are too young?
Accelerating from 50 MPH to 80 MPH in something like a Civic is going to take you around 5 seconds (based on 0-60 in 10 seconds). In 5 seconds, you have already covered 160 feet more than the semi, and they don't get much longer than around 120 feet (a Turnpike Double is two 53-foot trailers). So you've already passed the semi by the time you hit 80 MPH.
So many people on this board are trying to justify inexperienced teenagers driving faster than 80 MPH for 'safety', yet every example given is laughable.
When I was younger, I use to drive fast (85+) in my old 4-cylinder Mustang (yes, they made four-banger Mustangs), but I'm probably lucky that my wimpy engine limited my speed.
There is no good reason to drive so fast, especially if you are still learning to drive.
There is actually no reason to let 16 year-olds drive. They are still in high school. Why the hell do they need to drive somewhere? They still have parents to drive them places (since they still live at home). I think a smarter law would be 17 years old to get a learner's permit. Then 18 years old to get a regular license, when you are leaving home, and a legal adult.
If you need to do faster than 80 MPH to pass a truck, then the truck is probably going plenty fast, and you have no reason to pass it.