Criminal records checks Corporate liability for misconduct Vehicle checks and certifications Availability of vehicles in off hours Services for the disabled Rate limits. Discrimination, passengers can not be discriminated against based on protected aspects such as race, gender, age, etc. All of the above go into the regulation of taxis in most jurisdictions. In exchange for these regulations the taxi companies are given a limited number of licenses so that the limited revenue potential does not get spread too thin to make a living wage.
I used to work for a cab company and they threatened to fine us if we did not put on more handicap accessible vehicles. If Uber takes off the limited amount of revenue will be spread over too many people and full time drivers will find other work. Part time drivers work whenever they want and there is no guarantee there will be divers available to all times.
Uber does not care who drives for them or if they make a living wage. They just want the revenue. There has already been strikes(scroll to the bottom) for higher pay.
Funny that they don't show us what the proposal actually was. Maybe it was so ludicrous as to never be viable but now Uber can say they "tried". The article states that it was shot down in part because it would "threaten the livelihood of small taxi companies." What are the other parts? Maybe they are better reasons. Maybe Circa is selecting specific parts of the decision to sell clicks.
Uber tried again Feb. 25 to please South Korean regulators by offering its UberX service for free in Seoul.
After a bit Uber can say "Since it is safe enough to be free why is it not safe enough to pay for?". The issue is that people are being paid to drive to places that they would not otherwise go to.
As I said in my first post, which particular speech is being threatened is irrelevant.
It may be irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to the victims of the speech.
Censorship is a ball and chain for the soul of man.
Completely free speech is the dagger aimed at the heart of innocent victims..
Whatever the speech in question, the act of censoring it turns the latch that locks the shackle.
Whenever evil speech is facilitated, the act of allowing such post pushes the dagger deeper and completes the murder.
Whatever the first link, others are added until a great weight is there.
Whatever the first link, more damage is done.
And placing that weight on a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
And killing a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
I realize the end is a bit hyperbole but then so is the original statement and I was just paraphrasing you. Reasonable restrictions speech are not immoral. You seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Sorry but no society in the world has absolutely free speech. You are acting like a zealot where only one opinion is the truth. Sorry but the world is not that black and white.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope".
Your first sentence is the definition of a "slippery slope" argument. You even used the most obvious word in slippery slope arguments; "inevitable". As the saying goes, "the only two things that are inevitable are death and taxes". Sure there are places where censorship has gotten out of hand but there are many more places where "censorship" has not. For example, Facebook has restrictions on the content of photos.
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
Do you think because of that they will later censor political speech too? There are lots of sites that restrict sexual content and still have very broad free speech rules.
So now breakup posts of nude pictures that were sent in strictest confidence at a time of lust and love is now a freedom of speech issue? Sorry but ruining someone else's life because they discovered you are a duchbag and you are mad at them is not protected speech.
"It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
Sorry but we live in a world that is not as black and white as you seem to see it. Some speech needs to be restricted as it causes damage without having any redeeming qualities.
Denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.
It has been but it also has been the first step in the creation of a civil society. Criminalizing libel and slander has caused people to be sure of their facts before speaking. Do you believe that accusing an innocent person of pedophilia is free speech? Accusations like that can ruin people's lives. It is impossible to prove a negative like "He is not a pedophile"? There will always be the possibility that the proof of guilt was just not found. Too many people believe the saying "where there is smoke there is fire". Sometimes it is just someone trying to ruin someone else's life. Absolutes like "Never true" cause more trouble than they solve. We should be very careful what kind of speech we restrict. I believe requiring a release to post sexual content pictures is a valid restriction.
Everything is about balance. In this case it is the balance between the right to freedom of speech and and the right to privacy. In this specific instance the right to privacy is more important than the ability to post sexual photos of someone else. Your argument that "if they restrict this they will restrict everything" is just absurd.
The rest of the grid infrastructure still needs to be there even though you are using only a little bit of it. Do you pay highway taxes for only the roads you travel on?
premises with solar are suppliers not consumers (if they create more than they use)
They are suppliers when selling to the grid and consumers when buying from the grid.
yes, they should buy it for less and sell for more but why should the supplier pay for any infrastructure?
The part of the difference between the price utilities buy electricity and what they sell it at is the infrastructure cost. If a utility is forced to buy at the same price as they sell then there needs to be an infrastructure charge.
And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost.
If you are selling power to the grid then it is being used somewhere else.
How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
At night coal power is still being delivered to the house. If you are selling power to the utility at the same rate as the utility is selling to you who pays for the following; grid operation; grid maintenance; maintenance on standby conventional plants; operation of standby conventional plants.
The homeowner should be paid at most the wholesale price of electricity and not the retail.
The Protocol does not prohibit attacks against binoculars, periscopes, telescopes, and other optical equipment because it was unknown whether laser attacks on such devices could cause permanent blindness.
1.Compare North Korea to South Korea and you will see that including reserves North Korea out matches South Korea. The US has about 29k troops there. That is meaningless if the North decides to attack.
2. It is not the only thing but it may be a deciding factor.
3. Combining Egypt and Jordan they have 539Ktroops. Part of that billions in armaments is landmines. The US may come to help but it would take time. I doubt any other country would come. They have never in the past. Even the US have never had boots on the ground in Israel in an invasion of Israel.
You have no idea what mines do or how they work. Their job is not to kill but to slow the enemy down and funnel them into killing areas where other assets like artillery does the killing.
As for international backlash. it sure has worked well for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Backlash is only important if it has teeth and no one wants to stand up for other countries.
Mining beaches is a great way to deter invasion. Up until 2013 Kinmen and Matsu Islands were heavily mined to deter invasion by China. An invasion of the main island could not take place without neutralizing those islands first. Taiwan has removed those land mines but has not destroyed their stockpile. They can still be deployed if China looks like they will invade.
I find it sad that the people who want to ban land mines will not guarantee the sovereignty of the countries that need them to exist.
I can name three countries that would not exist today without land mines; 1. South Korea 2. Taiwan 3. Israel Used properly as by these three countries land mines are an equalizer. Used improperly as in South East Asia and Africa they are a menace.
Non-expanding bullets injure more often than kill. A wounded soldier can be recovered and get medical attention. A wounded deer may run off and die slowly in a lot of pain. By the way it is legal in some places to hunt some animals with non expanding bullets.
DEER Rifles using centerfire, mushrooming ammunition.
BOBCAT, GROUNDHOG, UNPROTECTED WILDLIFE, FOX, COYOTE & FERAL SWINE Rifles of any caliber.
Notice that deer hunting has the mushrooming ammunition restriction but the other category does not. That is because deer take more energy to kill.
Refugees and/or evacuees don't deserve to be slaughtered because they took a path someone decided was a great place for autonomous killing machines.
Automated does not meany unattended. One person at the off switch of a group of guns will fix that issue.
it should be fine to plant massive mine fields in any place you don't have active troops.
Two issues with your statement; 1. I never said anywhere. In a well marked and possibly fenced area it would be fine. 2. The problem with land mines is that they can not be easily turned off. Automated gun positions can.
I'm not sure you thought that belief through very well.
Sorry but I think it is you that needs more thinking.
Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
That incident was caused by an accident where the dazzler hit they eye of someone much closer than the dazzler was tuned for. That is an incidental effect of the dazzler and is not grounds for banning.
There are a number of weapons where their use is restricted. For example white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties. Lasers are not banned. Dazzlers are not banned. Only lasers intended to blind are banned.
I agree that the burden on attacking soldiers should not be reduced. I do think that the burden on defending soldiers should be reduced. If one can defend a country and have fewer dead soldiers I see that as a good thing. It also allows smaller countries to defend against more militaristic countries.
If used in fixed positions and covering no go areas I can see autonomous weapons systems as useful.
I can not find a reference to such a TV network/Boeing mission. Do you have any?
The media rights for Sochi were sold for $775M. Using the MIT estimate of $4.5B for the initial outpost that would still leave it only 17% funded. This mission cost is over five times the revenue from an Olympic Games.
Lets look at big budget movies. Notice that most of them returned much more than the investment.
Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not.
Every public company in the free market has a legal obligation to make a profit. There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars. It is a money pit. Why would any responsible company throw money at Mars with little or no hope of profit? They would have a better chance of getting their money bay by buying a lottery ticket. Company board members would be sued for investing in manned Mars missions. Mars 1 is a nonprofit that has no way of actually making money. All they are doing is soliciting investment from people and companies.
And they have at least 365 shows a year. Which one? According to a search on their site their only reference to a failure at that time arethese. Those are coverage of the failed landing.
Sending people to Mars without sufficient funds to keep them alive makes it a suicide mission. They may get off the ground but they will never be able to do the follow on missions.
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not:D
Slashdot Mirror
Criminal records checks
Corporate liability for misconduct
Vehicle checks and certifications
Availability of vehicles in off hours
Services for the disabled
Rate limits.
Discrimination, passengers can not be discriminated against based on protected aspects such as race, gender, age, etc.
All of the above go into the regulation of taxis in most jurisdictions. In exchange for these regulations the taxi companies are given a limited number of licenses so that the limited revenue potential does not get spread too thin to make a living wage.
I used to work for a cab company and they threatened to fine us if we did not put on more handicap accessible vehicles. If Uber takes off the limited amount of revenue will be spread over too many people and full time drivers will find other work. Part time drivers work whenever they want and there is no guarantee there will be divers available to all times.
Uber does not care who drives for them or if they make a living wage. They just want the revenue. There has already been strikes(scroll to the bottom) for higher pay.
Uber is ride sharing in the same way pizza delivery is food sharing. People and companies are making money off of it therefore it is not sharing.
Funny that they don't show us what the proposal actually was. Maybe it was so ludicrous as to never be viable but now Uber can say they "tried". The article states that it was shot down in part because it would "threaten the livelihood of small taxi companies." What are the other parts? Maybe they are better reasons. Maybe Circa is selecting specific parts of the decision to sell clicks.
Uber tried again Feb. 25 to please South Korean regulators by offering its UberX service for free in Seoul.
After a bit Uber can say "Since it is safe enough to be free why is it not safe enough to pay for?". The issue is that people are being paid to drive to places that they would not otherwise go to.
As I said in my first post, which particular speech is being threatened is irrelevant.
It may be irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to the victims of the speech.
Censorship is a ball and chain for the soul of man.
Completely free speech is the dagger aimed at the heart of innocent victims..
Whatever the speech in question, the act of censoring it turns the latch that locks the shackle.
Whenever evil speech is facilitated, the act of allowing such post pushes the dagger deeper and completes the murder.
Whatever the first link, others are added until a great weight is there.
Whatever the first link, more damage is done.
And placing that weight on a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
And killing a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
I realize the end is a bit hyperbole but then so is the original statement and I was just paraphrasing you. Reasonable restrictions speech are not immoral. You seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Sorry but no society in the world has absolutely free speech. You are acting like a zealot where only one opinion is the truth. Sorry but the world is not that black and white.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope".
Your first sentence is the definition of a "slippery slope" argument. You even used the most obvious word in slippery slope arguments; "inevitable". As the saying goes, "the only two things that are inevitable are death and taxes". Sure there are places where censorship has gotten out of hand but there are many more places where "censorship" has not. For example, Facebook has restrictions on the content of photos.
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
Do you think because of that they will later censor political speech too? There are lots of sites that restrict sexual content and still have very broad free speech rules.
So now breakup posts of nude pictures that were sent in strictest confidence at a time of lust and love is now a freedom of speech issue? Sorry but ruining someone else's life because they discovered you are a duchbag and you are mad at them is not protected speech.
"It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
Sorry but we live in a world that is not as black and white as you seem to see it. Some speech needs to be restricted as it causes damage without having any redeeming qualities.
Denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.
It has been but it also has been the first step in the creation of a civil society. Criminalizing libel and slander has caused people to be sure of their facts before speaking. Do you believe that accusing an innocent person of pedophilia is free speech? Accusations like that can ruin people's lives. It is impossible to prove a negative like "He is not a pedophile"? There will always be the possibility that the proof of guilt was just not found. Too many people believe the saying "where there is smoke there is fire". Sometimes it is just someone trying to ruin someone else's life. Absolutes like "Never true" cause more trouble than they solve. We should be very careful what kind of speech we restrict. I believe requiring a release to post sexual content pictures is a valid restriction.
Everything is about balance. In this case it is the balance between the right to freedom of speech and and the right to privacy. In this specific instance the right to privacy is more important than the ability to post sexual photos of someone else. Your argument that "if they restrict this they will restrict everything" is just absurd.
Slut shaming? What is that? Is that when a girl is criticized for sleeping around? So it's only bad when men do it?
You just showed your true colours. Guys can be slut shamed buy girls too. Notice the new rules do not mention gender; you did.
The rest of the grid infrastructure still needs to be there even though you are using only a little bit of it. Do you pay highway taxes for only the roads you travel on?
premises with solar are suppliers not consumers (if they create more than they use)
They are suppliers when selling to the grid and consumers when buying from the grid.
yes, they should buy it for less and sell for more but why should the supplier pay for any infrastructure?
The part of the difference between the price utilities buy electricity and what they sell it at is the infrastructure cost. If a utility is forced to buy at the same price as they sell then there needs to be an infrastructure charge.
Lets go through the inaccuracies in your post;
And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost.
If you are selling power to the grid then it is being used somewhere else.
How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
At night coal power is still being delivered to the house.
If you are selling power to the utility at the same rate as the utility is selling to you who pays for the following;
grid operation;
grid maintenance;
maintenance on standby conventional plants;
operation of standby conventional plants.
The homeowner should be paid at most the wholesale price of electricity and not the retail.
You too have not read the protocol;
The Protocol does not prohibit attacks against binoculars, periscopes, telescopes, and other optical equipment because it was unknown whether laser attacks on such devices could cause permanent blindness.
Yes but usually both sides regard territory (or people within it) as their own... otherwise they would not be fighting about it in the first place.
The more common cause is "We know the land is yours but we want it anyway". Ever heard of Lebensraum.
1.Compare North Korea to South Korea and you will see that including reserves North Korea out matches South Korea. The US has about 29k troops there. That is meaningless if the North decides to attack.
2. It is not the only thing but it may be a deciding factor.
3. Combining Egypt and Jordan they have 539Ktroops. Part of that billions in armaments is landmines. The US may come to help but it would take time. I doubt any other country would come. They have never in the past. Even the US have never had boots on the ground in Israel in an invasion of Israel.
You have no idea what mines do or how they work. Their job is not to kill but to slow the enemy down and funnel them into killing areas where other assets like artillery does the killing.
As for international backlash. it sure has worked well for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Backlash is only important if it has teeth and no one wants to stand up for other countries.
Mining beaches is a great way to deter invasion. Up until 2013 Kinmen and Matsu Islands were heavily mined to deter invasion by China. An invasion of the main island could not take place without neutralizing those islands first. Taiwan has removed those land mines but has not destroyed their stockpile. They can still be deployed if China looks like they will invade.
I find it sad that the people who want to ban land mines will not guarantee the sovereignty of the countries that need them to exist.
Too bad that will never happen.
If you are in someone else's territory you are the attacker.
I can name three countries that would not exist today without land mines;
1. South Korea
2. Taiwan
3. Israel
Used properly as by these three countries land mines are an equalizer. Used improperly as in South East Asia and Africa they are a menace.
Non-expanding bullets injure more often than kill. A wounded soldier can be recovered and get medical attention. A wounded deer may run off and die slowly in a lot of pain. By the way it is legal in some places to hunt some animals with non expanding bullets.
DEER
Rifles using centerfire, mushrooming ammunition.
BOBCAT, GROUNDHOG, UNPROTECTED WILDLIFE, FOX, COYOTE & FERAL SWINE
Rifles of any caliber.
Notice that deer hunting has the mushrooming ammunition restriction but the other category does not. That is because deer take more energy to kill.
Refugees and/or evacuees don't deserve to be slaughtered because they took a path someone decided was a great place for autonomous killing machines.
Automated does not meany unattended. One person at the off switch of a group of guns will fix that issue.
it should be fine to plant massive mine fields in any place you don't have active troops.
Two issues with your statement;
1. I never said anywhere. In a well marked and possibly fenced area it would be fine.
2. The problem with land mines is that they can not be easily turned off. Automated gun positions can.
I'm not sure you thought that belief through very well.
Sorry but I think it is you that needs more thinking.
Can anyone explain why we use dazzlers when they appear to be on the banned list?
How about you take a look at the protocol on blinding laser weapons.
Article 3
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
That incident was caused by an accident where the dazzler hit they eye of someone much closer than the dazzler was tuned for. That is an incidental effect of the dazzler and is not grounds for banning.
There are a number of weapons where their use is restricted. For example white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties. Lasers are not banned. Dazzlers are not banned. Only lasers intended to blind are banned.
I agree that the burden on attacking soldiers should not be reduced. I do think that the burden on defending soldiers should be reduced. If one can defend a country and have fewer dead soldiers I see that as a good thing. It also allows smaller countries to defend against more militaristic countries.
If used in fixed positions and covering no go areas I can see autonomous weapons systems as useful.
I can not find a reference to such a TV network/Boeing mission. Do you have any?
The media rights for Sochi were sold for $775M. Using the MIT estimate of $4.5B for the initial outpost that would still leave it only 17% funded. This mission cost is over five times the revenue from an Olympic Games.
I got the $4.5B cost from an independent MIT paper. I agree with you completely that this is not feasible with current technology.
Lets look at big budget movies. Notice that most of them returned much more than the investment.
Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not.
Every public company in the free market has a legal obligation to make a profit. There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars. It is a money pit. Why would any responsible company throw money at Mars with little or no hope of profit? They would have a better chance of getting their money bay by buying a lottery ticket. Company board members would be sued for investing in manned Mars missions. Mars 1 is a nonprofit that has no way of actually making money. All they are doing is soliciting investment from people and companies.
And they have at least 365 shows a year. Which one? According to a search on their site their only reference to a failure at that time are these. Those are coverage of the failed landing.
You don't know if it is suicide.
Sending people to Mars without sufficient funds to keep them alive makes it a suicide mission. They may get off the ground but they will never be able to do the follow on missions.
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not :D
Then it is a scam.