It is the risking of other people's lives due to the profit motive that people are objecting to. When you put profit into the mix the motivation to cut safety corners rised greatly and that is where regulation comes in.
Finger scanners reduce the pattern to a number. There are several algorithms to do that encoding. Scans from different algorithms can not be matched. Finger print scanners are very different than taking fingerprints.
A finger scanner looks for certain features and reduces the result to a number. There are many different algorithms to do this encoding. Even different versions of the same model use different algorithms and fingers have to be re-scanned. The bottom line is that, in most cases, finger scans from different systems can not be use to identify someone between systems.
My kids' schools use it, and we've never had any problems.
... that you know of. I bet the lunch people have to deal quite often with student who have forgotten or miss-remembered their user id and/or password.
First, how is this related to a fingerprint scanner that is not compatible with other fingerprint scanners. Second, I guess you better be careful if you commit a crime.
and if they do cross my property line they can be held responsible, including me shooting it out of the sky.
Can you shoot down airliners who cross your property lines? You actually don't own all airspace over your property. There has been a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.
It is clear that the land owner does not own navigable airspace. Navigable airspace is defined with respect to fixed wing aircraft, the FAA has done that, it is unclear as to what navigable airspace means with respect to small drones. There is even a clause that allows helicopters to fly below normal flight minimums. There still needs to be legislation defining exactly what "space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land" legally means. Having to fly comercial drones at fixed wing minimums would render them useless. This is one of the reasons why the FAA is holding back on allowing commercial drones as the laws backing them up are unclear.
To make it more clear, I have basically 3 inspection lists.
Which you do but which Uber drivers may not do unless there are regulations forcing them to do it and licensing which is the means of enforcing the regulations.
And most of the lists were less stringent than what I do when I take my motorcycle out.
Not all people act like you do. Regulations are made for the less conciencous.
As uncqual said - if the daily checks were so important for the safety of the vehicle they would logically be required for private citizen vehicles as well.
Since a commercial vehicle drive many times the miles of a private vehicle it is much more likely to get into an accident based on miles traveled.
The way you're analyzing frequency, the only thing that's changed is that the accident risk which would've been concentrated upon a single Uber vehicle is now distributed among multiple cabs.
The problem is that you are comparing an Uber vehicle, which rarely gets inspected, and a cab, which gets inspected every day. The risk per mile of a poorly inspected car is higher than an inspected car. Then there is work hour limits. A commercial driver has a limit on the number of hours he can work in a day. As a contractor, does an Uber driver?
And we cant have that now can we. Unless you can pay off the legislature to protect your business.
What I disagree with is one business getting a lower level of regulation that another business doing the same thing when the only difference is that one business is falsely calling themselves "sharing". Uber does not want a level playing field because they want to keep all their advantages (the ability to pick high use times, ability to discriminate, lower safety standards, little consequence for breaking rules, etc).
The difference is that a cab can drive on average 300 miles a day while an average car may drive 30. On a per mile bases that makes a cab ten times more likely to have an accident per day.
When the Uber driver has to make the decision to get the brakes fixed or pay rent, without mandatory inspections, which one do you think they will choose? If you don't think it is about safety you have not worked in the cab industry.
Considering the only thing you seemed interested in was cleanliness I have a good idea.
Worst case you do what the military does - hand the driver a checklist to go over.
Without special licensing there is no long term consequence for not doing it. Fail to do pre-trip inspections and your commercial license gets pulled.
I figure that's a suitable inspection period.
I guess you know better than every transport commission in existence that requires daily inspections(almost all do). What are your qualifications in this matter? None I bet. Monthly inspections might be OK for a private vehicle but not for a vehicle that drives a couple hundred miles a day carrying passengers. Go ahead and risk your life but don't risk the lives of paying passengers.
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No but you need to be able to prove you can do one to get the commercial license. Commercial drivers also have to take a physical before getting a licence.
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness)
That just goes to show how ill qualified you are to do a real pre-trip inspection. Do you check your tire wear, belts, fluid levels, lights and signals, fluid leaks, etc. A pre-trip inspection is much more than cleanliness.
mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
A non-commercial driver can skip oil changes and therefore inspections and can ignore mechanics' advice. Commercial vehicles do not have those options. By the way a full time Uber driver can easily log 1K miles in a week.
If you use $6 in gas and they pay you $12 then there is $6 profit. What you deliberately miss is that Uber drivers would not be making those trips if not paid for them.
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No. But if many different people come over, you cook to order and charge more than the cost of ingredients and energy then you are a restaurant.
Allowing someone to piggyback on something you are already doing and contributing to the cost is sharing. Doing something specifically at the request of someone else and charging more than the costs is not sharing. That is called running a business.
The main differences between Uber and true ride share programs are profit motive and frequency. A true ride share program does not make a profit for the company or the drivers. When the driver is making a living by carrying passengers it is for profit and therefore no longer sharing. Profit gives a motive for cutting corners and decreasing safety. Frequency comes in the fact that the driver makes one trip while Uber drivers make several. The more the driver is on the road the bigger chance of an accident.
Why do you need to be "fully licensed" to have someone pay you to drive somewhere
Why do you need to be fully licensed to cook food for someone?
don't need anything special to, you know, actually carpool with someone or drive a friend of a friend you don't even know to the airport?
You also don't need anything special to cook a meal and give some of it to a friend of a friend you don't even know. That would be sharing. When you add the exchange of money in excess of costs and cooking to order it becomes a restaurant and subject to health and safety laws.
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months. Part of the driver's license is the ability to do the pre-trip inspection. There are also limits on the number of hours a commercial driver can drive. If drivers cet caught too many time their commercial license is pulled. You can do that with a non-commercial license.
I like cars because that take a lot less time to get places. For a while I didn't have a car. I needed to go between two spots that would normally be a 40 minute drive. Due to low frequency and badly connected routes that trip took 2.5 hours. Another night I needed to make two stops. Driving would have taken about 45 minutes. It took 2.5 hours on the bus. I have a ten minute commute in my car. By bus, because I need to make 1 transfer, the closest bus gets me there 10 minutes early and a 10 minute walk, I would have to leave home 55 minutes before work instead of 10 minutes. It would take the same amount of time to get home. So instead of 20 minutes commuting a day it is 1 hour and 50 minutes. So I would spend another work day on the bus every week.
The overhead wires cost $2 million per mile and last almost indefinitely, it appears, because I have never seen maintenance being performed on any of them,
I guess you have not been looking very closely. Look at Table 5 in this document. Notice the trolley overhead cost/km traveled.
when in fact it really just means that aviation has a limited license to use unused airspace.
So if someone does not use their land someone else can come in and use it? They can't because, even though the owner is not using the property, the owner still retains property rights. Air space is different. If you don't use it in conjunction with a valid land use you don't own it. You can not lose property rights on airspace that you never had property rights to in the first place. The land owner gains property right by constructing objects into the airspace.
Of course, pilots, airlines, airports, and the FAA have a strong motivation to create the impression that they have more rights and authority than they actually have,
The SCOTUS created that impression when they stated the following.
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land.
The responses from you and other pilots strongly suggest that there is a culture of disdain for property rights
It ts impossible to be disdainful of a right that does not exist. The only inflated sense of entitlement I see is from you. Your idea that all air below navigable airspace belongs to the land owner is false. I am repeating myself now so think what you want. Other than the ancient quote which became obsolete with the advent of aircraft and has been overruled by the SCOTUS you have shown nothing that states the land owner own are below navigable airspace.
The FAA cannot force property owners to accommodate aircraft even near airports (if you disagree, cite the law that you think gives the FAA that power).
I never sait the FAA can force anything. I said the land owner can not deny use unless there is a building. How about a href="http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2000/November/1/Pilot-Counsel-(11).aspx">this.
disregarding the exceptions for helicopters.
On what basis do you "disregard exceptions for helicopters". Choosing only part of the laws that agree with your view is invalid. You have to take everything into account.
Minimum safe altitude is defined generally at least as 500ft above ground and away from structures, or more.
Can't you tell the difference between a fixed wing aircraft and a small drone? The minimums you quote are for fixed wing aircraft.
You're free to choose a different interpretation, but unless you have some case law to back it up, pardon me for not taking you very seriously;
When you pick and chose what you refer to your interpretation becomes skewed.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the risking of other people's lives due to the profit motive that people are objecting to. When you put profit into the mix the motivation to cut safety corners rised greatly and that is where regulation comes in.
Finger scanners reduce the pattern to a number. There are several algorithms to do that encoding. Scans from different algorithms can not be matched. Finger print scanners are very different than taking fingerprints.
A finger scanner looks for certain features and reduces the result to a number. There are many different algorithms to do this encoding. Even different versions of the same model use different algorithms and fingers have to be re-scanned. The bottom line is that, in most cases, finger scans from different systems can not be use to identify someone between systems.
My kids' schools use it, and we've never had any problems.
... that you know of. I bet the lunch people have to deal quite often with student who have forgotten or miss-remembered their user id and/or password.
First, how is this related to a fingerprint scanner that is not compatible with other fingerprint scanners.
Second, I guess you better be careful if you commit a crime.
Then why are you not advocating the removal if inspection requirements form commercial vehicles?
and if they do cross my property line they can be held responsible, including me shooting it out of the sky.
Can you shoot down airliners who cross your property lines?
You actually don't own all airspace over your property. There has been a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.
It is clear that the land owner does not own navigable airspace. Navigable airspace is defined with respect to fixed wing aircraft, the FAA has done that, it is unclear as to what navigable airspace means with respect to small drones. There is even a clause that allows helicopters to fly below normal flight minimums. There still needs to be legislation defining exactly what "space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land" legally means. Having to fly comercial drones at fixed wing minimums would render them useless. This is one of the reasons why the FAA is holding back on allowing commercial drones as the laws backing them up are unclear.
To make it more clear, I have basically 3 inspection lists.
Which you do but which Uber drivers may not do unless there are regulations forcing them to do it and licensing which is the means of enforcing the regulations.
And most of the lists were less stringent than what I do when I take my motorcycle out.
Not all people act like you do. Regulations are made for the less conciencous.
As uncqual said - if the daily checks were so important for the safety of the vehicle they would logically be required for private citizen vehicles as well.
Since a commercial vehicle drive many times the miles of a private vehicle it is much more likely to get into an accident based on miles traveled.
The way you're analyzing frequency, the only thing that's changed is that the accident risk which would've been concentrated upon a single Uber vehicle is now distributed among multiple cabs.
The problem is that you are comparing an Uber vehicle, which rarely gets inspected, and a cab, which gets inspected every day. The risk per mile of a poorly inspected car is higher than an inspected car. Then there is work hour limits. A commercial driver has a limit on the number of hours he can work in a day. As a contractor, does an Uber driver?
And we cant have that now can we. Unless you can pay off the legislature to protect your business.
What I disagree with is one business getting a lower level of regulation that another business doing the same thing when the only difference is that one business is falsely calling themselves "sharing". Uber does not want a level playing field because they want to keep all their advantages (the ability to pick high use times, ability to discriminate, lower safety standards, little consequence for breaking rules, etc).
The difference is that a cab can drive on average 300 miles a day while an average car may drive 30. On a per mile bases that makes a cab ten times more likely to have an accident per day.
When the Uber driver has to make the decision to get the brakes fixed or pay rent, without mandatory inspections, which one do you think they will choose? If you don't think it is about safety you have not worked in the cab industry.
I drove cabs. Do you think fewer regulations would make them safer?
You have no clue as to my inspection abilities.
Considering the only thing you seemed interested in was cleanliness I have a good idea.
Worst case you do what the military does - hand the driver a checklist to go over.
Without special licensing there is no long term consequence for not doing it. Fail to do pre-trip inspections and your commercial license gets pulled.
I figure that's a suitable inspection period.
I guess you know better than every transport commission in existence that requires daily inspections(almost all do). What are your qualifications in this matter? None I bet. Monthly inspections might be OK for a private vehicle but not for a vehicle that drives a couple hundred miles a day carrying passengers. Go ahead and risk your life but don't risk the lives of paying passengers.
I am trying to tell you that Uber drivers are trying to make a profit and are therefore not "ride sharing" and Uber is not a ride share program.
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No but you need to be able to prove you can do one to get the commercial license. Commercial drivers also have to take a physical before getting a licence.
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness)
That just goes to show how ill qualified you are to do a real pre-trip inspection. Do you check your tire wear, belts, fluid levels, lights and signals, fluid leaks, etc. A pre-trip inspection is much more than cleanliness.
mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
A non-commercial driver can skip oil changes and therefore inspections and can ignore mechanics' advice. Commercial vehicles do not have those options. By the way a full time Uber driver can easily log 1K miles in a week.
If you use $6 in gas and they pay you $12 then there is $6 profit. What you deliberately miss is that Uber drivers would not be making those trips if not paid for them.
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No. But if many different people come over, you cook to order and charge more than the cost of ingredients and energy then you are a restaurant.
Allowing someone to piggyback on something you are already doing and contributing to the cost is sharing. Doing something specifically at the request of someone else and charging more than the costs is not sharing. That is called running a business.
The main differences between Uber and true ride share programs are profit motive and frequency. A true ride share program does not make a profit for the company or the drivers. When the driver is making a living by carrying passengers it is for profit and therefore no longer sharing. Profit gives a motive for cutting corners and decreasing safety. Frequency comes in the fact that the driver makes one trip while Uber drivers make several. The more the driver is on the road the bigger chance of an accident.
Why do you need to be "fully licensed" to have someone pay you to drive somewhere
Why do you need to be fully licensed to cook food for someone?
don't need anything special to, you know, actually carpool with someone or drive a friend of a friend you don't even know to the airport?
You also don't need anything special to cook a meal and give some of it to a friend of a friend you don't even know. That would be sharing. When you add the exchange of money in excess of costs and cooking to order it becomes a restaurant and subject to health and safety laws.
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months. Part of the driver's license is the ability to do the pre-trip inspection. There are also limits on the number of hours a commercial driver can drive. If drivers cet caught too many time their commercial license is pulled. You can do that with a non-commercial license.
I like cars because that take a lot less time to get places. For a while I didn't have a car. I needed to go between two spots that would normally be a 40 minute drive. Due to low frequency and badly connected routes that trip took 2.5 hours. Another night I needed to make two stops. Driving would have taken about 45 minutes. It took 2.5 hours on the bus. I have a ten minute commute in my car. By bus, because I need to make 1 transfer, the closest bus gets me there 10 minutes early and a 10 minute walk, I would have to leave home 55 minutes before work instead of 10 minutes. It would take the same amount of time to get home. So instead of 20 minutes commuting a day it is 1 hour and 50 minutes. So I would spend another work day on the bus every week.
The overhead wires cost $2 million per mile and last almost indefinitely, it appears, because I have never seen maintenance being performed on any of them,
I guess you have not been looking very closely. Look at Table 5 in this document. Notice the trolley overhead cost/km traveled.
No. As the article states it actually take two factors; IP obfuscation and high download use. VPN alone is not enough.
Such behavior may include the illegitimate use by Internet users of IP obfuscation tools in combination with high download volumes.
when in fact it really just means that aviation has a limited license to use unused airspace.
So if someone does not use their land someone else can come in and use it? They can't because, even though the owner is not using the property, the owner still retains property rights. Air space is different. If you don't use it in conjunction with a valid land use you don't own it. You can not lose property rights on airspace that you never had property rights to in the first place. The land owner gains property right by constructing objects into the airspace.
Of course, pilots, airlines, airports, and the FAA have a strong motivation to create the impression that they have more rights and authority than they actually have,
The SCOTUS created that impression when they stated the following.
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land.
The responses from you and other pilots strongly suggest that there is a culture of disdain for property rights
It ts impossible to be disdainful of a right that does not exist. The only inflated sense of entitlement I see is from you. Your idea that all air below navigable airspace belongs to the land owner is false. I am repeating myself now so think what you want. Other than the ancient quote which became obsolete with the advent of aircraft and has been overruled by the SCOTUS you have shown nothing that states the land owner own are below navigable airspace.
The FAA cannot force property owners to accommodate aircraft even near airports (if you disagree, cite the law that you think gives the FAA that power).
I never sait the FAA can force anything. I said the land owner can not deny use unless there is a building. How about a href="http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2000/November/1/Pilot-Counsel-(11).aspx">this.
disregarding the exceptions for helicopters.
On what basis do you "disregard exceptions for helicopters". Choosing only part of the laws that agree with your view is invalid. You have to take everything into account.
Minimum safe altitude is defined generally at least as 500ft above ground and away from structures, or more.
Can't you tell the difference between a fixed wing aircraft and a small drone? The minimums you quote are for fixed wing aircraft.
You're free to choose a different interpretation, but unless you have some case law to back it up, pardon me for not taking you very seriously;
When you pick and chose what you refer to your interpretation becomes skewed.