Your last line is kind of what I was thinking. So the car is fast.. and if I had one I would probably tear it up all the time.. but if going fast is going to kill your battery before you are done with it then what's the point of going fast?
Well, I started buying these devices back in the iPod days, so I very much think about what the sound is like when I purchase a device; third probably behind type of OS and screen size. On the other hand, I've bought $80 wired ear buds that sound spectacular but even with $200 bluetooth headphones, the sound seems flat in most that I have tried. Maybe if you go to the $500 range they start to sound ok but I'll just stop listening to music altogether before I spend that.
I'm with you.... I don't need any more devices that need to be plugged in. Fine for tablets, because that is the point of them. But I don't like the idea of taking a device that doesn't need to be charged and making it chargeable, especially since batteries seem to only last 2 years of repeated charge cycles.
True enough, but not identical to the current situation because in a monopoly it is one company selling to another, as opposed to one of many companies selling to another.
Well no, she cant because once taxis start to get less business they will have to charge more to stay afloat, since people like you no longer cover the distance.
So she should use a higher cost service than everyone else because she is physically disabled. Nice. The whole point is for people who are completely healthy to partly cover the cost of the disabled.
Anyone who can say 'the market will take care of it' when they know damn well the market is taking care of their needs while having no idea how a service that is unprofitable will manifest itself for others is rather obtuse and probably locked into their little bubble. That's all I'm saying. No need to hurl insults.
When you say 'that the people actually want' you mean 'what people like me actually want'. There are people who aren't like you who will be left in the dark without taxi's. Don't worry, you may be selfish and unable to put yourself in a position of those less able than you, but you are in good company in the US today.
You only see it that way because you don't see (or want to acknowledge) the large problems that existed before regulation. I find this rather bizarre since Uber is walking all over people left and right, but apparently you feel they are entitled to it. Companies do not automatically provide what a city transportation service needs in the absence of regulation, they only provide what they find profitable. This means many people will be left without service at all in the absence of regulated taxis. Regulation only exists because companies have proven time and time again that they will take advantage if left to operate on their own.
It's strange you say corruption is associated with a lack of regulation, when it is the entities formed in lack of regulation that are more corrupt. Regulations generally keep people from screwing over other people. Drug companies actually have to test the products they sell using a preset testing procedure, when I buy a house the owner is legally obligated to divulge serious maintenance issues, houses have to be built to a certain quality. All this is to stop companies that would surely cut corners too far and run away once anyone has an issue. Uber is a way more corrupt organization than any taxi company, we have already seen they have no regard for any law or their employees and passengers.
Well, I don't want to live there. Regulations keep me from getting screwed over where I live, for example when I'm looking for a house the seller is legally required to mention anything fundamentally wrong with the house.
At any rate, they have to treat taxis like a physical product because there is only so much space on the road, and there is wear and tear from having extra cars on the road.
What you are saying is totally false. The government just sets the number of licenses available, the market does the rest. If a medallion is for sale at $500K and a company not already in the market wants in, they are free to buy. In a monopoly there would be no option to buy. In fact, if it were a monopoly there would be no price on a medallion at all, or at least a much lower price, because there would be no transfer of hands ever.
So? Why does an iPhone cost so much. The price isn't attached to any kind of manufacturing cost, it is simply set at the highest price that Apple can sell it at. Same reason a medallion can cost $500K.
Slashdot Mirror
Your last line is kind of what I was thinking. So the car is fast.. and if I had one I would probably tear it up all the time.. but if going fast is going to kill your battery before you are done with it then what's the point of going fast?
I don't really understand what you mean about bass boost. I listen to a lot of electronic music, they do that on purpose.
Instapaper just seemed like a pretty RSS reader to me. With fluffy articles.
No bass, mostly.
Well, I started buying these devices back in the iPod days, so I very much think about what the sound is like when I purchase a device; third probably behind type of OS and screen size. On the other hand, I've bought $80 wired ear buds that sound spectacular but even with $200 bluetooth headphones, the sound seems flat in most that I have tried. Maybe if you go to the $500 range they start to sound ok but I'll just stop listening to music altogether before I spend that.
Do they perform well on a track? I used to be all about straight line speed but I've been watching Top Gear a lot recently.
I'm with you.... I don't need any more devices that need to be plugged in. Fine for tablets, because that is the point of them. But I don't like the idea of taking a device that doesn't need to be charged and making it chargeable, especially since batteries seem to only last 2 years of repeated charge cycles.
You're still relying on the audio hardware running in the headphone as opposed to the expensive device you payed for it in.
Doesn't mean he isn't right.
True enough, but not identical to the current situation because in a monopoly it is one company selling to another, as opposed to one of many companies selling to another.
Well no, she cant because once taxis start to get less business they will have to charge more to stay afloat, since people like you no longer cover the distance.
So she should use a higher cost service than everyone else because she is physically disabled. Nice. The whole point is for people who are completely healthy to partly cover the cost of the disabled.
Anyone who can say 'the market will take care of it' when they know damn well the market is taking care of their needs while having no idea how a service that is unprofitable will manifest itself for others is rather obtuse and probably locked into their little bubble. That's all I'm saying. No need to hurl insults.
When you say 'that the people actually want' you mean 'what people like me actually want'. There are people who aren't like you who will be left in the dark without taxi's. Don't worry, you may be selfish and unable to put yourself in a position of those less able than you, but you are in good company in the US today.
You only see it that way because you don't see (or want to acknowledge) the large problems that existed before regulation. I find this rather bizarre since Uber is walking all over people left and right, but apparently you feel they are entitled to it. Companies do not automatically provide what a city transportation service needs in the absence of regulation, they only provide what they find profitable. This means many people will be left without service at all in the absence of regulated taxis. Regulation only exists because companies have proven time and time again that they will take advantage if left to operate on their own.
Well the scarcity isn't really artificial, it is just a financial representation of the fact that the roads can only carry so many cars.
It's strange you say corruption is associated with a lack of regulation, when it is the entities formed in lack of regulation that are more corrupt. Regulations generally keep people from screwing over other people. Drug companies actually have to test the products they sell using a preset testing procedure, when I buy a house the owner is legally obligated to divulge serious maintenance issues, houses have to be built to a certain quality. All this is to stop companies that would surely cut corners too far and run away once anyone has an issue. Uber is a way more corrupt organization than any taxi company, we have already seen they have no regard for any law or their employees and passengers.
Well, I don't want to live there. Regulations keep me from getting screwed over where I live, for example when I'm looking for a house the seller is legally required to mention anything fundamentally wrong with the house.
Maybe they don't exist to clog the streets, but they did before there were medallions.. historical fact.
At any rate, they have to treat taxis like a physical product because there is only so much space on the road, and there is wear and tear from having extra cars on the road.
What you are saying is totally false. The government just sets the number of licenses available, the market does the rest. If a medallion is for sale at $500K and a company not already in the market wants in, they are free to buy. In a monopoly there would be no option to buy. In fact, if it were a monopoly there would be no price on a medallion at all, or at least a much lower price, because there would be no transfer of hands ever.
That's done through the legislators for the city.
That doesn't exist anywhere, not sure what you mean by "so much for"
I don't think you're taking into account frequent service for the vehicle. Brakes and fluids will need to be done every month for such heavy use.
So? Why does an iPhone cost so much. The price isn't attached to any kind of manufacturing cost, it is simply set at the highest price that Apple can sell it at. Same reason a medallion can cost $500K.