The complaints and lawsuits aren't about the Uber Black and above service tiers which you rightly identify as legally licensed livery services.
The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers. Uber is taking a cut and claiming it's OK because there's no licenses required for dispatchers. According to Uber it's the individual drivers who are breaking the law and that they are independent contractors. It's a nice huge legal grey area that's unregulated.
Same thing about Air B&B. There's a service gap between "loan my apartment to a friend while I'm out of town in exchange for a few bucks" and hotels. The companies that have used technology to insert themselves in this gap as a middleman have facilitated a lot of abuse of the legal grey areas. Where do you draw the line between renting, hoteling, and sharing? It's easy to identify the extremes that are clearly abuse, but very hard to draw clear delineators that trigger different regulations.
How do you draw the line between carpooling, ride sharing, and operating a taxi?
Funny, in other countries (like say my recent visit to Hong Kong) you can book a local taxi through Uber, so clearly Uber is open to the idea. But no, in NYC they decided to go their own way and create a crappy booking app and sue Uber because they were suddenly forced to compete.
And aside from the ride-sharing, at the more expensive Uber tiers (like "Black") they are operating fully within the laws for a livery company with licensed drivers.
The medallions is a racket scheme where people got rich taking out loans to by $1m taxi licenses due to an artificial scarcity and building up mini empires as licensing middlemen who lease the medallion to actual drivers. There's no way a taxi concession license is worth $1m even in NYC. It's an artificial market that's being disrupted and rightfully so.
So you have a planning task to get in there and figure out what tasks need to be done. That's exactly what I'm doing right now in s major upgrade project. The rest of the sprint my time me is filled with research and planning tasks and the outcome will be a huge suite of epics and user stories mapping out dependencies that will fill several sprints for my team.
The request was "upgrade the platform to version X" and my planning task means we now have several months of work mapped out that can be rebalanced across the team as necessary in small manageable chunks.
{Christianity} is disproportionately the religion of {slaveholding} murderers in the world. It is not a coincidence, it is not the result of poverty. The {Bible} teaches psychopathy, and as long as {Christianity} is allowed to survive, {slavery} and the other hideous aspects of this abominable religion will continue.
This statement used to be true. Things can change and the religion won't be blamed. Having a huge pool of underprivileged sex-starved young men at your disposal leads to easily radicalization.
As someone who went through all those sleepless nights, training, and even some of the tests before leaving the profession, I have no qualms about my current profession borrowing the terminology as it is a good analogy to what architects do for buildings.
So, here's the difference... the PM for the bridge construction can't say due to time and cost you're going to remove half of the structure of the bridge, simply not pave the bridge deck, and let the client file a defect for any missing functionality. The CEO doesn't also get to sneak it into a sales deck and add 9 different features to it when nobody is looking. The sales guy didn't tell someone it would also work for trains without telling the engineers.
You clearly haven't ever been involved with a real construction project or have conversations with people who do.
This is a crap article and just pushing for the tool the guy built.
All the tool tells you is that the site makes 3rd party requests (Ghostery does a lot better job at this than some random bundle of python scripts). It does not tell what any of those 3rd party requests are doing, nor whether any personal data is being "leaked" by the site itself. Nor does it tell you if the site is pushing data wholesale on the backend to 3rd parties.
Both. Men need to learn to communicate _differently_ with women and consider their feelings. And women need to learn not to take everything so fucking personal.
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer! or You're being a fuckwad. Don't do this.
This is not a gender-based difference. It's bullshit gender-stereotyping to think women need thicker skins, or than men need to be softer when dealing with women. I know plenty of women that can dish out and receive much blunter criticism than average, and plenty of men who can't.
This is a matter of different communication styles and is irrespective of gender. Insular communities that have made bluntness (or worse, crudeness) an acceptable form of communication are inherently hostile to people that find that unacceptable. As a result, they will lose the support and contributions from people that value less toxic communication.
On the flip side, too much caveating and balancing of emotion can be stifling to those who do not value amicability in their communications. This also can have a negative impact on participation. This is basic human communication skills, and requires finding the right balance based on the personalities of the participants in determining what the collective group will value and respond best to.
It's very well known that the Linux kernel community weighs very heavily to one side of the spectrum, and honestly it's as the public face, Linus sets the tone (intentionally or not). This is a very good example of a well-respected person making it clear that they are self-limiting their contributions specifically because of how communications within the community are balanced.
Chalking this up to "men and women are different' is a disingenuous attempt to sidetrack the discussion with a red herring.
Exactly. People used WinCE devices because they had to (usually because of Exchange servers), not because they wanted to. Like so much else that MS does, they completely ignored the single most important aspect of a mobile OS - the user experience. Apple made that their #1 focus (remember how original iOS didn't support apps? or that they forced AT&T over a barrel to create visual voicemail?) and that's why they cleaned house. Android still hasn't caught up in a lot of areas which is why Samsung hasn't displaced Apple.
Umm... that's exactly what Microsoft did - there were even multiple versions of the Palm Treo running Windows CE aka Windows Mobile.
Microsoft's failure was in trying to chipping away at a desktop GUI until it was a PDA/Phone GUI and even Google made the same mistake with Android 1.0 (not sure if Android still uses "click" events instead of "tap" events, been a while since I looked at the SDK).
What Apple did brilliantly was take a fundamentally touchscreen phone-based GUI and extend it into a richer experience. No-one else other than Palm was ready to to move in the same direction, and they were hampered by massive management problems and their legacy platform.
I'm the boss who determined and approved sublime as the text editor for the roles I oversee. A year later when my machine is wiped by a failure in the automatic deployment in the craptastic non-native, buggy, full disk encryption that IT forces in their standard, I requested the license to reinstall sublime (I have admin access). Answer? "We don't support that. Use the version of Text Wrangler that was put on the standard image for your role 3 years ago because we can't remember that we were supposed to update the standard image to sublime last year"
For once the RIAA actually gets it. They aren't claiming that BitTorrent (the protocol) is illegal or that it doesn't have legitimate uses.
Instead, they very specifically said that of the illegal file sharing happening over BItTorrent, the majority of it is coming from uTorrent, the client published by BItTorrent (the company).
They're clearly looking hoping the company will implement filtering to combat piracy (likely knowing full well that they'll kill the company in the process). This tactic has worked against other companies in the past who published software that was used more for piracy than legitimate uses (MetaMachine and eDonkey anyone?). Don't go after the technology - go after the company supporting the technology.
We have recorded human history for thousands of years - and a few decades worth of reserve fossil fuels is somehow sufficient? Where's the next 2000 years worth of fossil fuels going to come from?
App API support is totally different than in-browser support.
As a web developer, it's very difficult to determine which specific hardware my page is being rendered on. And the abstraction of the web implies that I *should not* be targeting specific hardware.
Hence OS level. Of course I shouldn't be targeting specific OS either, but that's a different story.
But I wasn't the one playing grammar nazi with where question marks were being placed.
The API does provide a web view and I don't think there is really anything you can do in web app that you can't do in a native app. In fact for a long time it was the other way around, WebGL 3D graphics have only recently become available in Safari.
The HTML view originally did not allow any remote content loading. This is one of the limitations PhoneGap was originally created for. The "UIWebView" added later essentially embeds a Safari page in your app and prevents a very tidy container to limit how the contents can affect the container app.
Firefox already does this with its WebGL driver blacklist. It does not support WebGL on pre-OpenGL 2.0 GPUs, such as the integrated GMA 3100 in the Atom N450 processor in my laptop.
Only because Firefox cannot control the hardware and the software layers. What's the point in saying your software supports feature X if all the hardware it runs on can't support X? Apple controls both sides within their products so they can choose what "support" means. They chose to make iOS8 the point where hardware-accelerated 3D was supported inside the browser because that's the release where all their supported hardware could handle the feature and do so without performance degradation.
Again, as a developer or product manager, "works in iOS8" is a lot easier to worry about than "works in iOS8, but only on iPhone 4s and later (not iPhone 4), iPad 3 and later (but not the first iPad mini) and only on the last version of the iPod Touch". Limits on hardware fragmentation is considered one of the benefits of iOS and OSX development.
Standards - They've supported tons of standards, and all their enterprise/business support tool chains are built up from *NIX libraries. Yes, they layer their own customizations on top (just like everyone else) and yes, these often change between releases without warning (but that's the point about secretive roadmaps).
It's pretty hard to claim that Safari always sucked. Webkit was a fork of KHTML and from day one it was better than any KHTML browser (Konquerer was horrendous!). By limiting the browser to just the standards they quickly got other browser makers to improve their standards support (hey, there's "standards" again!). The only "enterprise-friendly" browser has always been IE, and that's only if you define "enterprise" as "dependent on IE-specific behaviors".
Of all of these, secretive product roadmaps is the only one really at fault for lack of enterprise adoption. Speaking of enterprise adoption, which enterprise companies don't support iOS devices in this day and age?
With the question mark it is an implied continuation of the previous question.
"You realize... there are a lot of limitations in the iOS APIs because they'd prefer you do certain things in browsers where it can follow standards instead of being some developer's hack-up of poor security or poor performance?"
Speaking of which, Mr. Grammar Nazi, you forgot your own question mark:
Surely their native APIs are not so limited that they make you embed a whole browser in your application just to be able to do something.
For an example, try loading a publicly hosted URL directly in an HTML view with an app. Oh right, it used to be blocked because its a huge security risk on the level of stupidity that PDF is known for, and it directly duplicates what the browser should be doing. Instead you can use platform APIs to request content for your your view, or use the platform-provided wrapper to display remote content safely - which by necessity require you to build in a more responsible and secure way.
For instance, please explain why it took until iOS 6 for HTML/JS apps to access the user's photo and video libraries through an controls
Because exposing a user's files to any in-page behavior is a security risk and needs to be handled in clean managed ways with limited APIs? The hooks they established to do this went far beyond just browsers and also affect how content is provided to apps and 3rd party API calls.
and until iOS 8 for HTML/JS apps to put the most basic 3D view on screen (WebGL).
Because 3D in browser has gone through a lot of iterations over the years? Read up on VRML for example. WebGL is a relatively recent fad extended from OpenGL and so relies on device drivers for hardware acceleration. Rather than have pages that would perform poorly or be inconsistently incompatible, Apple didn't guarantee provide the feature until OS-supported devices could support it. It's bad enough to run into situations where "it works on latest release, but not previous ones". Imagine how bad it would be if "it works on the latest release, but only on these specific models". That's a non-starter when it comes to the world of HTML/JS/CSS development.
LOL - you realize the the original iPhone allowed *only* HTML/JS apps? And there are a lot of limitations in the iOS APIs because they'd prefer you do certain things in browsers where it can follow standards instead of being some developer's hack-up of poor security or poor performance?
Slashdot Mirror
The complaints and lawsuits aren't about the Uber Black and above service tiers which you rightly identify as legally licensed livery services.
The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers. Uber is taking a cut and claiming it's OK because there's no licenses required for dispatchers. According to Uber it's the individual drivers who are breaking the law and that they are independent contractors. It's a nice huge legal grey area that's unregulated.
Same thing about Air B&B. There's a service gap between "loan my apartment to a friend while I'm out of town in exchange for a few bucks" and hotels. The companies that have used technology to insert themselves in this gap as a middleman have facilitated a lot of abuse of the legal grey areas. Where do you draw the line between renting, hoteling, and sharing? It's easy to identify the extremes that are clearly abuse, but very hard to draw clear delineators that trigger different regulations.
How do you draw the line between carpooling, ride sharing, and operating a taxi?
Funny, in other countries (like say my recent visit to Hong Kong) you can book a local taxi through Uber, so clearly Uber is open to the idea. But no, in NYC they decided to go their own way and create a crappy booking app and sue Uber because they were suddenly forced to compete.
And aside from the ride-sharing, at the more expensive Uber tiers (like "Black") they are operating fully within the laws for a livery company with licensed drivers.
The medallions is a racket scheme where people got rich taking out loans to by $1m taxi licenses due to an artificial scarcity and building up mini empires as licensing middlemen who lease the medallion to actual drivers. There's no way a taxi concession license is worth $1m even in NYC. It's an artificial market that's being disrupted and rightfully so.
The city is not getting $1m for each medallion. That's the artificial market created by middlemen trading in medallions.
So you have a planning task to get in there and figure out what tasks need to be done. That's exactly what I'm doing right now in s major upgrade project. The rest of the sprint my time me is filled with research and planning tasks and the outcome will be a huge suite of epics and user stories mapping out dependencies that will fill several sprints for my team.
The request was "upgrade the platform to version X" and my planning task means we now have several months of work mapped out that can be rebalanced across the team as necessary in small manageable chunks.
This statement used to be true. Things can change and the religion won't be blamed. Having a huge pool of underprivileged sex-starved young men at your disposal leads to easily radicalization.
Copy-on-select prevents you from doing paste-as-replace limiting you to the stupidly inefficient paste-as-insert
Unless you drive a train.
As someone who went through all those sleepless nights, training, and even some of the tests before leaving the profession, I have no qualms about my current profession borrowing the terminology as it is a good analogy to what architects do for buildings.
You clearly haven't ever been involved with a real construction project or have conversations with people who do.
You mean like Software Architect?
This is a crap article and just pushing for the tool the guy built.
All the tool tells you is that the site makes 3rd party requests (Ghostery does a lot better job at this than some random bundle of python scripts). It does not tell what any of those 3rd party requests are doing, nor whether any personal data is being "leaked" by the site itself. Nor does it tell you if the site is pushing data wholesale on the backend to 3rd parties.
That screenshot shows Ghostery installed and running.... so clearly it supports ad/tracker blocking
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer! or You're being a fuckwad. Don't do this.
This is not a gender-based difference. It's bullshit gender-stereotyping to think women need thicker skins, or than men need to be softer when dealing with women. I know plenty of women that can dish out and receive much blunter criticism than average, and plenty of men who can't.
This is a matter of different communication styles and is irrespective of gender. Insular communities that have made bluntness (or worse, crudeness) an acceptable form of communication are inherently hostile to people that find that unacceptable. As a result, they will lose the support and contributions from people that value less toxic communication.
On the flip side, too much caveating and balancing of emotion can be stifling to those who do not value amicability in their communications. This also can have a negative impact on participation. This is basic human communication skills, and requires finding the right balance based on the personalities of the participants in determining what the collective group will value and respond best to.
It's very well known that the Linux kernel community weighs very heavily to one side of the spectrum, and honestly it's as the public face, Linus sets the tone (intentionally or not). This is a very good example of a well-respected person making it clear that they are self-limiting their contributions specifically because of how communications within the community are balanced.
Chalking this up to "men and women are different' is a disingenuous attempt to sidetrack the discussion with a red herring.
Exactly. People used WinCE devices because they had to (usually because of Exchange servers), not because they wanted to. Like so much else that MS does, they completely ignored the single most important aspect of a mobile OS - the user experience. Apple made that their #1 focus (remember how original iOS didn't support apps? or that they forced AT&T over a barrel to create visual voicemail?) and that's why they cleaned house. Android still hasn't caught up in a lot of areas which is why Samsung hasn't displaced Apple.
Umm... that's exactly what Microsoft did - there were even multiple versions of the Palm Treo running Windows CE aka Windows Mobile.
Microsoft's failure was in trying to chipping away at a desktop GUI until it was a PDA/Phone GUI and even Google made the same mistake with Android 1.0 (not sure if Android still uses "click" events instead of "tap" events, been a while since I looked at the SDK).
What Apple did brilliantly was take a fundamentally touchscreen phone-based GUI and extend it into a richer experience. No-one else other than Palm was ready to to move in the same direction, and they were hampered by massive management problems and their legacy platform.
I'm the boss who determined and approved sublime as the text editor for the roles I oversee. A year later when my machine is wiped by a failure in the automatic deployment in the craptastic non-native, buggy, full disk encryption that IT forces in their standard, I requested the license to reinstall sublime (I have admin access). Answer? "We don't support that. Use the version of Text Wrangler that was put on the standard image for your role 3 years ago because we can't remember that we were supposed to update the standard image to sublime last year"
For once the RIAA actually gets it. They aren't claiming that BitTorrent (the protocol) is illegal or that it doesn't have legitimate uses.
Instead, they very specifically said that of the illegal file sharing happening over BItTorrent, the majority of it is coming from uTorrent, the client published by BItTorrent (the company).
They're clearly looking hoping the company will implement filtering to combat piracy (likely knowing full well that they'll kill the company in the process). This tactic has worked against other companies in the past who published software that was used more for piracy than legitimate uses (MetaMachine and eDonkey anyone?). Don't go after the technology - go after the company supporting the technology.
We have recorded human history for thousands of years - and a few decades worth of reserve fossil fuels is somehow sufficient? Where's the next 2000 years worth of fossil fuels going to come from?
App API support is totally different than in-browser support.
As a web developer, it's very difficult to determine which specific hardware my page is being rendered on. And the abstraction of the web implies that I *should not* be targeting specific hardware.
Hence OS level. Of course I shouldn't be targeting specific OS either, but that's a different story.
Starting a sentence with "surely" to indicate disbelief is asking for confirmation of the statement contained therein.
http://www.englishpractice.com...
But I wasn't the one playing grammar nazi with where question marks were being placed.
The HTML view originally did not allow any remote content loading. This is one of the limitations PhoneGap was originally created for. The "UIWebView" added later essentially embeds a Safari page in your app and prevents a very tidy container to limit how the contents can affect the container app.
Only because Firefox cannot control the hardware and the software layers. What's the point in saying your software supports feature X if all the hardware it runs on can't support X? Apple controls both sides within their products so they can choose what "support" means. They chose to make iOS8 the point where hardware-accelerated 3D was supported inside the browser because that's the release where all their supported hardware could handle the feature and do so without performance degradation.
Again, as a developer or product manager, "works in iOS8" is a lot easier to worry about than "works in iOS8, but only on iPhone 4s and later (not iPhone 4), iPad 3 and later (but not the first iPad mini) and only on the last version of the iPod Touch". Limits on hardware fragmentation is considered one of the benefits of iOS and OSX development.
Standards - They've supported tons of standards, and all their enterprise/business support tool chains are built up from *NIX libraries. Yes, they layer their own customizations on top (just like everyone else) and yes, these often change between releases without warning (but that's the point about secretive roadmaps).
It's pretty hard to claim that Safari always sucked. Webkit was a fork of KHTML and from day one it was better than any KHTML browser (Konquerer was horrendous!). By limiting the browser to just the standards they quickly got other browser makers to improve their standards support (hey, there's "standards" again!). The only "enterprise-friendly" browser has always been IE, and that's only if you define "enterprise" as "dependent on IE-specific behaviors".
Of all of these, secretive product roadmaps is the only one really at fault for lack of enterprise adoption. Speaking of enterprise adoption, which enterprise companies don't support iOS devices in this day and age?
With the question mark it is an implied continuation of the previous question.
Speaking of which, Mr. Grammar Nazi, you forgot your own question mark:
For an example, try loading a publicly hosted URL directly in an HTML view with an app. Oh right, it used to be blocked because its a huge security risk on the level of stupidity that PDF is known for, and it directly duplicates what the browser should be doing. Instead you can use platform APIs to request content for your your view, or use the platform-provided wrapper to display remote content safely - which by necessity require you to build in a more responsible and secure way.
Because exposing a user's files to any in-page behavior is a security risk and needs to be handled in clean managed ways with limited APIs? The hooks they established to do this went far beyond just browsers and also affect how content is provided to apps and 3rd party API calls.
Because 3D in browser has gone through a lot of iterations over the years? Read up on VRML for example. WebGL is a relatively recent fad extended from OpenGL and so relies on device drivers for hardware acceleration. Rather than have pages that would perform poorly or be inconsistently incompatible, Apple didn't guarantee provide the feature until OS-supported devices could support it. It's bad enough to run into situations where "it works on latest release, but not previous ones". Imagine how bad it would be if "it works on the latest release, but only on these specific models". That's a non-starter when it comes to the world of HTML/JS/CSS development.
LOL - you realize the the original iPhone allowed *only* HTML/JS apps? And there are a lot of limitations in the iOS APIs because they'd prefer you do certain things in browsers where it can follow standards instead of being some developer's hack-up of poor security or poor performance?