Industry regulation actually does prevent car accidents by ensuring drivers have not been working for 48 hours straight, but that isn't even what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is the fact that Uber does not allow drivers to afford commercial insurance, therefore they will not be covered. Unless you were born yesterday, you will know that insurance companies will use any excuse they can to NOT pay out, and they are fully supported by law, so don't expect your hospital bills to be paid if you lose a leg, can no longer work and need to sue.
If you want to support Uber then go change the laws so that insurance companies are forced to pay out in this situation. But don't support Uber otherwise.
By allowing Uber in and removing regulation, we will be destroying every bit of the taxi industry that you say was so coveted. There will only be a new kind of industry where you need a ride and you can't call a Taxi, you can only call a person driving a car. Once automation cars are a reality, you won't even be able to call a person, just a car.
You're missing the point. The government should be making sure that commercial carriers of people have proper protection for those people. That is in essence the role of government, so why would you be confused about the fact that they are focusing on it?
Have you conducted a safety inspection of every vehicle you have been in? Do you have proof that the driver is in a reasonable condition to drive in an alert manner? No? I guess it's an awful good thing that the industry takes care of that for you then.
On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.
To people who have the simpleton view that the taxi companies are hiding behind these laws to protect their own income, consider for a moment what will happen to the marketplace if it is deregulated. First of all, the market can't be regulated for some and not for others. If any player is exempted from regulation at all then you might as well not have any, because the average customer just wants the cheapest price and doesn't really give a shit about regulation when they use a service. To get the lowest price, everyone must cut things like regular service and insurance coverage to compete. Now the customer expecting the lowest price will never think of these things when they get in the vehicle, but they benefit from them all the same every time they use the service.
Before you get into an Uber car, will you check the brakes? Will you take a close look at the tires? Will you ask for proof of adequate insurance? Hell no. Therefore you will be riding in an unsafe car, and even worse, safer cars will be unaffordable and therefore nonexistent. Do you really want to be relying on an industry full of shitty cars, and shitty drivers? Do you want an industry where your driver is making pennies and stretched, forced to lie and cheat to keep his living going? Just wait until cars actually are automated. Then no one makes any money at all.
There is no doubt that capitalism is a race to the bottom, we can try to hold it up a little longer.
Why do slashdot posters always quote salaries in the bay area?? Good on you if you are in the bay area or can move to the bay area, but most people are:
1) not in the bay area, and
2) cannot move to the bay area
There is such a thing as family obligations and local ties to community. One hotspot in the US is not good enough.
The 1% won't have to do anything. The current system in place will simply starve people out. Welfare will be unaffordable, and therefore continue only as a sham but really helping no one, and people will simply starve. The system in place has nothing to prevent this from happening.
Re:Any reasons for checking it out?
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
But I'm a fat programmer! Can I still wear skinny jeans?
I don't get it.. you don't need to type all those parameters twice do you?
Not understanding why the string "(a:String, b:Int)" needs to be there twice. Is the second one for the return value? In which case a better example would be to use something different, like -> x:String?
If I need an application that has to crunch a million numbers into a few cells, I am more than likely going to want a browser application because that will get the impact of the computations off of my local CPU in a straightforward way.
If I want an application that is less computational, such as a calendar application, I don't want a whole bunch of generic controls such as a back button or an address bar, or having tine extra work of dealing with tabs to go from reading slashdot to working on my calendar for the week. I want to be able to click once on my OS task bar and have a window come up that is dedicated to my calendar. The browser experience is just shitty for light applications and I hope that the companies out there continue to develop native windows applications. I really don't get why people were so nuts over google mail. Maybe it was good but the browser experience killed it for me every time.
There was recently a question about validity of jQuery.. I think this is its main strength. Use a good javascript framework properly and you get browser compatibility for free.
Regarding dependence.... Once a critical mass of people become dependent on cloud services, I know what will happen. You will have to pay a fee to 'withdraw' your own family photos like banks charge for funds.
This is in fact the way open capitalism is supposed to work. Businesses are supposed to fail every day and there are new ones to take their place. They are not supposed to be so protected that they become mammoths that will cause a disaster if they fail, as they are today.
A local economy can only support so much investment and extraction of profit. The key to increasing the health is to increase the size of the market, not undercut the very legislation keeping it afloat.
Slashdot Mirror
And I thought it was because they couldn't find a corner radius for a TV that wasn't already taken by someone else.
iTunes runs on Windows? I'll add you to the list of people who have never actually tried to use iTunes on Windows.
I thought Apple invented gold!
Industry regulation actually does prevent car accidents by ensuring drivers have not been working for 48 hours straight, but that isn't even what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is the fact that Uber does not allow drivers to afford commercial insurance, therefore they will not be covered. Unless you were born yesterday, you will know that insurance companies will use any excuse they can to NOT pay out, and they are fully supported by law, so don't expect your hospital bills to be paid if you lose a leg, can no longer work and need to sue.
If you want to support Uber then go change the laws so that insurance companies are forced to pay out in this situation. But don't support Uber otherwise.
By allowing Uber in and removing regulation, we will be destroying every bit of the taxi industry that you say was so coveted. There will only be a new kind of industry where you need a ride and you can't call a Taxi, you can only call a person driving a car. Once automation cars are a reality, you won't even be able to call a person, just a car.
You're missing the point. The government should be making sure that commercial carriers of people have proper protection for those people. That is in essence the role of government, so why would you be confused about the fact that they are focusing on it?
Have you conducted a safety inspection of every vehicle you have been in? Do you have proof that the driver is in a reasonable condition to drive in an alert manner? No? I guess it's an awful good thing that the industry takes care of that for you then.
When the driver of the Uber car you are in gets in a serious accident, then you will care very much about industry regulation.
It's very sad that the economy has gotten so bad that people now call being an Uber driver "employment".
On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.
To people who have the simpleton view that the taxi companies are hiding behind these laws to protect their own income, consider for a moment what will happen to the marketplace if it is deregulated. First of all, the market can't be regulated for some and not for others. If any player is exempted from regulation at all then you might as well not have any, because the average customer just wants the cheapest price and doesn't really give a shit about regulation when they use a service. To get the lowest price, everyone must cut things like regular service and insurance coverage to compete. Now the customer expecting the lowest price will never think of these things when they get in the vehicle, but they benefit from them all the same every time they use the service.
Before you get into an Uber car, will you check the brakes? Will you take a close look at the tires? Will you ask for proof of adequate insurance? Hell no. Therefore you will be riding in an unsafe car, and even worse, safer cars will be unaffordable and therefore nonexistent. Do you really want to be relying on an industry full of shitty cars, and shitty drivers? Do you want an industry where your driver is making pennies and stretched, forced to lie and cheat to keep his living going? Just wait until cars actually are automated. Then no one makes any money at all.
There is no doubt that capitalism is a race to the bottom, we can try to hold it up a little longer.
Everyone knows Apple invented time on the day that the Apple watch was released.
Why do slashdot posters always quote salaries in the bay area?? Good on you if you are in the bay area or can move to the bay area, but most people are:
1) not in the bay area, and
2) cannot move to the bay area
There is such a thing as family obligations and local ties to community. One hotspot in the US is not good enough.
The 1% won't have to do anything. The current system in place will simply starve people out. Welfare will be unaffordable, and therefore continue only as a sham but really helping no one, and people will simply starve. The system in place has nothing to prevent this from happening.
But I'm a fat programmer! Can I still wear skinny jeans?
Uber is like the non-handicapped person who parks in the handicapped spot at the supermarket and actually thinks they deserve to be there.
You should cook 50% more patties so that you can earn 50% more.
I don't get it.. you don't need to type all those parameters twice do you?
Not understanding why the string "(a:String, b:Int)" needs to be there twice. Is the second one for the return value? In which case a better example would be to use something different, like -> x:String?
If I need an application that has to crunch a million numbers into a few cells, I am more than likely going to want a browser application because that will get the impact of the computations off of my local CPU in a straightforward way.
If I want an application that is less computational, such as a calendar application, I don't want a whole bunch of generic controls such as a back button or an address bar, or having tine extra work of dealing with tabs to go from reading slashdot to working on my calendar for the week. I want to be able to click once on my OS task bar and have a window come up that is dedicated to my calendar. The browser experience is just shitty for light applications and I hope that the companies out there continue to develop native windows applications. I really don't get why people were so nuts over google mail. Maybe it was good but the browser experience killed it for me every time.
There was recently a question about validity of jQuery.. I think this is its main strength. Use a good javascript framework properly and you get browser compatibility for free.
Regarding dependence.... Once a critical mass of people become dependent on cloud services, I know what will happen. You will have to pay a fee to 'withdraw' your own family photos like banks charge for funds.
This is in fact the way open capitalism is supposed to work. Businesses are supposed to fail every day and there are new ones to take their place. They are not supposed to be so protected that they become mammoths that will cause a disaster if they fail, as they are today.
This actually sounds a lot cheaper and more practical than 3D printing a billion pills.
A local economy can only support so much investment and extraction of profit. The key to increasing the health is to increase the size of the market, not undercut the very legislation keeping it afloat.
You can't have diversity. The people who spend more to make a good product will always lose out. Why can't you see that it is how markets work?