Yes, except that people use ride-sharing to get more than just their gas, without getting a commercial license (technically this is probably illegal). So similar rules should apply to Uber as well, as we could assume that drivers only take others for a ride with it, if it's "on their way" (never-mind their "way" being "cruising around town").
That seems far more convoluted and unworkable than "make all people using their vehicles commercially have commercial license/insurance"
Can't speak for anywhere else, but where I live it's illegal to pick up hitchhikers, effectively making ride-sharing with strangers illegal.
Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs.
There are restrictions on what can be garnished legally;
Those restrictions are based on arbitrary government calculations (the same calculations that say a person with a $40K/yr job can afford $800/mo student loan payments, because they fail to take any expenses into account), and can be overruled by a judge.
They may also avoid garnishment by switching jobs, and ensuring the party holding judgement does not know and cannot discover their employment, or being employed in a cash payment business. For example: waiters/waitresses commonly receive direct payments as tips, which the employer doesn't have access to, therefore is incapable of garnishing.
Instead of refuting point-by-point, I'm just going to leave this here.
Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.
More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.
The number of Americans on welfare have increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions. The number of Americans on food stamps during the president’s term has risen by more than 14 million.
So, gross misinterpretation of facts, then. Or rather, conflating the terms "government assistance" and "welfare."
FWIW, tax credits are technically "government assistance."
Typical American - "You're not raising your children the way I think children should be raised, so you're wrong!"
At least, it sure as hell seems that way. It's understandable to want to call obviously bad parents on obviously egregious acts, like beating a child, but we 'Muricans take it to the next level, demanding government action any time someone wants to rear their own offspring in a way that certain segments of society have deemed unfit.
Let your kid walk a 1/2 mile to the park and play by himself? We used to call that normal, now it's a criminal offense.
Why would this cure anyone of FPS BS? What correlation is there between FPS and real war? Who plays an FPS because they wanted to go to war, but didn't like travel?
I don't mind shooting up some virtual people, I want to be as far away from real war as I possibly can be.
Yes, as an adult, you realize that. But would you have realized it as a child? Probably not, if the only experience you had with guns and death was video-game based.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole friggin' point.
They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.
This only works if you have wages. Over 50% of the US population is on welfare, and many might not have any wages to garnish.
Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.
Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs. The one's who aren't are typically disabled, or very very elderly; many of whom don't own cars or drive.
As for Uber or Lyft..... the victim can always sue the company, claim the company is liable. Even if the driver was just using the app, the litigant can claim the driver was distracted and Uber/Lyft designed their app such that they knew or should have known it would result in distracted drivers.
They'd have to, since operating your personal vehicle commercially would void the driver's personal insurance. They could also sue the driver directly for fraud, as he would be misrepresenting himself as an agent of a legitimate commercial venture.
I don't want someone, who later in life didn't seem to grasp basic experimental evidence before him, to have anything to do with designing, well, anything.
Well, bad news then - that man designed a lot of the technology that you're using right this second (alternating current, for example), and developed the concept for technologies that are just now becoming feasible (like the internet and wireless charging).
Personally, I think you're just trolling with this comment.
I don't see a whole lot of people saying Uber is bad and should not be allowed to operate for that reason.
What I see, is a lot of people saying that if Uber is going to operate a taxi service, they should operate it under the same, existing regulations that every other taxi service in [region] operates under. Which doesn't seem, to me, like too much to ask.
My problem with Uber is twofold - their desire to not be regulated (but keep everyone else regulated), and their petulant whining about it.
So the only way to have a "Free Market" is by having Government control?
No, no, no.
The only way to have a Free Market is to build a trans-dimensional vehicle and transport yourself to FantasyLand. Because here in Reality, there is absolutely no such thing as a free market - even black markets, which are the closest thing, are regulated to a certain degree.
you make it sound like you win your case and you're automatically granted millions of dollars. It does happen from time to time,
Indeed - for example, when a person misrepresents themselves as a commercial carrier, though they lack the proper licensure and insurance. Because then it's not just "causing a car wreck," it's also fraud.
Germany and the UK, two countries with strict licensing of various sorts are several times safer than the US when it comes to driving. And those are two countries with a very high population density.
Hey, as an American I take offense to that!
Not what you said, mind, but rather the fact that it's true.
(This isn't the US, you guys get screwed by your government and insurance companies, we do less so here in Europe)
Depends on your insurance company and agent. A few years back my wife was rear-ended by some d-bag with fly-by-night insurance, and our agent hounded theirs to the point of threatening a federal lawsuit against the company. They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.
The entire Uber hullaballoo is happening exactly because nobody seems able to clearly articulate the value that this giant pile of red tape brings to the table.
As an American who actually payed attention in History and Civics classes, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that regulating business practices is one of the few things our government was actually established to do, due in large part to the shady practices that King George allowed corporations like the East India Tea Company to use on colonists.
Most people aren't pilots; in that, they aren't trained to do things like walkarounds of their vehicles before every trip, or calculate and ensure the amount of fuel they're going to need for their journey.
seriously, look at the way people operate their cars in two dimensions - do you really think it's a good idea to let those same morons drive in the same moronic fashion, but over your head?
There's no reason, for example, an aircraft couldn't say, "our destination is over the ocean, but we don't have enough fuel for that, so I'm stopping for gas now..." It would be like riding a horse, if you ask it to walk into a wall, it just looks at you funny.
That makes absolutely no sense, and I fail to see what relevance it has to my comment.
Civil liberties don't routinely extend to manufacturing devices specifically designed to kill other people and then handing them out to anyone who wants them without any questions being asked.
I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks hunters are cruel for killing animals, and that the only meat people should buy is what they "make" at the store, so no animals get hurt.
Surely a big part of the Flying Car Dream is making them safe enough for everybody to operate - which is to say, highly automated.
There won't be such a thing as a flying car that's safe enough for everybody to operate, until after somebody invents some form of levitating propulsion that requires no fuel. OR we require everyone who wants a license to go through a very, very strict training program, probably re-upping every few years (like pilots have to do).
Flying is particularly unforgiving of mistakes versus driving (think of all the idiot drivers out there)
This is my hang up as well.
Most people with driver's licenses aren't properly trained, and thus can't be trusted to successfully operate a vehicle in two dimensions - and someone wants to give them a third? Madness.
Slashdot Mirror
Execubot 1: It will play in Peoria
Execubot 2: (rolls dice) More Game Shows!
Execubot 3: It's funny, but will it get them off their tractors?
So the robot-driven, (mostly) post-scarcity economy won't be a capitalist economy
The problem is that the transition, or rather, attempt at transition, won't be easy or peaceful.
Nobody needs to work? Well then I guess all the products would be free at that point.
Right, but the "getting there" part is what you pro-robo-job proponents aren't explaining or getting.
So far, your argument goes like this:
- Robots replace all workers
- ????
- Work-and-cost-free utopia!
The trouble, by which I mean extreme poverty, social unrest, war, etc, comes in the ???? time period.
Yes, except that people use ride-sharing to get more than just their gas, without getting a commercial license (technically this is probably illegal). So similar rules should apply to Uber as well, as we could assume that drivers only take others for a ride with it, if it's "on their way" (never-mind their "way" being "cruising around town").
That seems far more convoluted and unworkable than "make all people using their vehicles commercially have commercial license/insurance"
Can't speak for anywhere else, but where I live it's illegal to pick up hitchhikers, effectively making ride-sharing with strangers illegal.
No. The guy was a lunatic. Sure, he came up with a bunch of useful stuff,
So, still a greater contributor to society than this particular detractor (that would be you).
That's all I needed to hear.
Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs.
There are restrictions on what can be garnished legally;
Those restrictions are based on arbitrary government calculations (the same calculations that say a person with a $40K/yr job can afford $800/mo student loan payments, because they fail to take any expenses into account), and can be overruled by a judge.
They may also avoid garnishment by switching jobs, and ensuring the party holding judgement does not know and cannot discover their employment, or being employed in a cash payment business. For example: waiters/waitresses commonly receive direct payments as tips, which the employer doesn't have access to, therefore is incapable of garnishing.
Instead of refuting point-by-point, I'm just going to leave this here.
Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
rt.com:
So, gross misinterpretation of facts, then. Or rather, conflating the terms "government assistance" and "welfare."
FWIW, tax credits are technically "government assistance."
Typical American - "You're not raising your children the way I think children should be raised, so you're wrong!"
At least, it sure as hell seems that way. It's understandable to want to call obviously bad parents on obviously egregious acts, like beating a child, but we 'Muricans take it to the next level, demanding government action any time someone wants to rear their own offspring in a way that certain segments of society have deemed unfit.
Let your kid walk a 1/2 mile to the park and play by himself? We used to call that normal, now it's a criminal offense.
Why would this cure anyone of FPS BS? What correlation is there between FPS and real war? Who plays an FPS because they wanted to go to war, but didn't like travel?
I don't mind shooting up some virtual people, I want to be as far away from real war as I possibly can be.
Yes, as an adult, you realize that. But would you have realized it as a child? Probably not, if the only experience you had with guns and death was video-game based.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole friggin' point.
They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.
This only works if you have wages. Over 50% of the US population is on welfare, and many might not have any wages to garnish.
Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.
Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs. The one's who aren't are typically disabled, or very very elderly; many of whom don't own cars or drive.
As for Uber or Lyft..... the victim can always sue the company, claim the company is liable. Even if the driver was just using the app, the litigant can claim the driver was distracted and Uber/Lyft designed their app such that they knew or should have known it would result in distracted drivers.
They'd have to, since operating your personal vehicle commercially would void the driver's personal insurance. They could also sue the driver directly for fraud, as he would be misrepresenting himself as an agent of a legitimate commercial venture.
Quick, somebody clone Nikola Tesla!
I don't want someone, who later in life didn't seem to grasp basic experimental evidence before him, to have anything to do with designing, well, anything.
Well, bad news then - that man designed a lot of the technology that you're using right this second (alternating current, for example), and developed the concept for technologies that are just now becoming feasible (like the internet and wireless charging).
Personally, I think you're just trolling with this comment.
I don't see a whole lot of people saying Uber is bad and should not be allowed to operate for that reason.
What I see, is a lot of people saying that if Uber is going to operate a taxi service, they should operate it under the same, existing regulations that every other taxi service in [region] operates under. Which doesn't seem, to me, like too much to ask.
My problem with Uber is twofold - their desire to not be regulated (but keep everyone else regulated), and their petulant whining about it.
I don't get it.
What's legally different with Uber to the ride sharing websites so popular in Germany for at least a decade now?
If you and I are going to the same place, so you pick me up and I chip in for gas - that's ride sharing.
If I specifically hire you to take me from point A to point B - that's hiring a taxi.
The difference is, in the first instance we're just two people going the same direction, whereas in the second you are a driver-for-hire.
Unless you're just sharing the cost.
Then you're not transporting commercial, are you?
Here's the difference:
Ride-sharing - you and I are going to the same place, so you pick me up and I give you a couple bucks for gas.
Taxi service - I call you, arrange a pickup time, and pay you to deliver me to my destination (which isn't necessarily yours).
So the only way to have a "Free Market" is by having Government control?
No, no, no.
The only way to have a Free Market is to build a trans-dimensional vehicle and transport yourself to FantasyLand. Because here in Reality, there is absolutely no such thing as a free market - even black markets, which are the closest thing, are regulated to a certain degree.
you make it sound like you win your case and you're automatically granted millions of dollars. It does happen from time to time,
Indeed - for example, when a person misrepresents themselves as a commercial carrier, though they lack the proper licensure and insurance. Because then it's not just "causing a car wreck," it's also fraud.
Germany and the UK, two countries with strict licensing of various sorts are several times safer than the US when it comes to driving. And those are two countries with a very high population density.
Hey, as an American I take offense to that!
Not what you said, mind, but rather the fact that it's true.
(This isn't the US, you guys get screwed by your government and insurance companies, we do less so here in Europe)
Depends on your insurance company and agent. A few years back my wife was rear-ended by some d-bag with fly-by-night insurance, and our agent hounded theirs to the point of threatening a federal lawsuit against the company. They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.
The entire Uber hullaballoo is happening exactly because nobody seems able to clearly articulate the value that this giant pile of red tape brings to the table.
Safety. Accountability. Legal recourse.
Take your pick.
As an American who actually payed attention in History and Civics classes, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that regulating business practices is one of the few things our government was actually established to do, due in large part to the shady practices that King George allowed corporations like the East India Tea Company to use on colonists.
Dude.
Rigid airships FTW!
OH, the humanity!!!!
Too soon?
How do you figure?
Most people aren't pilots; in that, they aren't trained to do things like walkarounds of their vehicles before every trip, or calculate and ensure the amount of fuel they're going to need for their journey.
seriously, look at the way people operate their cars in two dimensions - do you really think it's a good idea to let those same morons drive in the same moronic fashion, but over your head?
There's no reason, for example, an aircraft couldn't say, "our destination is over the ocean, but we don't have enough fuel for that, so I'm stopping for gas now..." It would be like riding a horse, if you ask it to walk into a wall, it just looks at you funny.
That makes absolutely no sense, and I fail to see what relevance it has to my comment.
Civil liberties don't routinely extend to manufacturing devices specifically designed to kill other people and then handing them out to anyone who wants them without any questions being asked.
I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks hunters are cruel for killing animals, and that the only meat people should buy is what they "make" at the store, so no animals get hurt.
You know - a moron.
Surely a big part of the Flying Car Dream is making them safe enough for everybody to operate - which is to say, highly automated.
There won't be such a thing as a flying car that's safe enough for everybody to operate, until after somebody invents some form of levitating propulsion that requires no fuel. OR we require everyone who wants a license to go through a very, very strict training program, probably re-upping every few years (like pilots have to do).
Quick, somebody clone Nikola Tesla!
Flying is particularly unforgiving of mistakes versus driving (think of all the idiot drivers out there)
This is my hang up as well.
Most people with driver's licenses aren't properly trained, and thus can't be trusted to successfully operate a vehicle in two dimensions - and someone wants to give them a third? Madness.