This is all nice and good, but I feel that public transport is just a stopgap till we get (pooled) self-driving cars. I'm talking about something like uber but with electric self-driving cars.
Which is just a stopgap until we develop teleportation technology. Which is just a stopgap until we evolve beyond the need for transportation at all.
Yes, I'm being sardonic. I tend to get that way when I see people essentially whining that existing technology only exists because non-existent technology doesn't exist - It just seems like a silly way of thinking.
Yes, and in another movie from the 1970's, I seem to recall hyperdrives, lightsabers and a death star...
I'm not trying to make a political comment one way or the other, but implementing -- and the extent to which this actually is the case remains to be seen -- an idea from an older movie doesn't mean it's not innovative, from an engineering standpoint.
Not necessarily, but the fact that maglevs are far from being new technology makes it not-so-innovative, from a literary standpoint.
the start up nation...at it again. how is it that a country of 7M people struggling for peace amongst hostile neighbors continues to out innovate the world.
Well, aside from the fact that the Israeli government's actions have been anything but a "struggle for peace," I fail to see how talking about building something that I remember seeing in a movie from the 1970's* is all that "innovative."
Perhaps if y'all want to be 'innovative,' you should try showing some humility for once.
In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
Is it really?
Yes. Note the qualifier, "In every place I've been to."
I know there are people who are paid to stand in line at the Supreme Court for popular cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-business-of-waiting-in-line/2012/03/25/gIQAhFJkZS_blog.html). There were talks about passing new laws to ban it, but it's not illegal yet
Well, that's fuckt. I don't agree with selling access to the SCOTUS, but of course, if you think about it, they aren't selling "access" so much as seating space in a viewing gallery (We, the People, don't get access to SCOTUS judges). Principle's the same, though - it's a public place, and should be equal access.
Well, my answer to the question would be, "None of your business," or, "I don't want to answer your questions," or, "Please leave me alone."
It's a crime to lie to a federal agent. It is rare that it's a crime to lie to a non-federal law enforcement officer. It's no crime to remain silent or refuse to answer questions.
OK, so you refuse to respond and he tells you to leave, and if you don't, he arrests you for "disobeying a lawful order." Of course, assuming the cop in this hypothetical found you via your ad in a 'sell this public parking space' app, he might not even bother to say anything other than reading you your rights.
2 main points I'm making here: 1, the government will always win in this fight. 2, no single person has a right to hold publicly-owned land for ransom.
I agree that governments will do whatever they can to shut down any market with which they disapprove.
FTFY. But I can't say I disagree with shutting down a market that involves ransoming property I already own back to me.
One can only envision the hilarity that will ensue when every neighborhood dog decides to go after these things. What's the counter to that? Equipping them with pepper spray like the mailman has? That could also prove to be amusing.
Doesn't take much imagination: some idiot weaponizes his toy, flies it over someone else's property, and causes harm to either persons or property via said weaponization; subsequent criminal and civil suits ensure that other people will think twice about weaponizing a toy and using it to assault other people/properties.
Yet another example of a retarded Libertarian with a slashdot account.
So, are you going to explain why a hundred drones delivering packages is magically much more dangerous than a truck-load of Amazon packages crashing into a packed school playground?
Aside from the false equivalence ("delivering packages" vs "crashing into a... school playground?" Really dude?), It's not magical at all - a truck can't fall out of the sky onto, er, another truck, causing the driver to crash into a packed school playground. A hundred drones, on the other hand, very much can fall from the sky and cause damage/harm to anything that happens to be below.
To me, that doesn't seem like the sort of thing that requires explanation; ie, the fact that "thing that flies over you" is inherently more dangerous than "thing that doesn't leave the ground."
Loitering is rarely illegal and anti-loitering statutes have been ruled unconstitutional.
Unless you are loitering with the clear intent to commit a crime you are pretty much free to hang out on any street, as Souter said, "...just to watch cars go by."
So, when the cop sees you still sitting in your car after his third trip around the block, stops to ask what your business is, and you tell him "I'm waiting for the guy who bought this parking space from me to come and take it," He's going to arrest you for fraud, not loitering.
Unless you commit a felony by lying to the police officer about your reasoning... at which point, that moral high ground you think you're taking just flew right out from under you.
Of course, if it becomes enough of an issue, the SF government can and will create new laws that make this practice functionally illegal, so the whole conversation is much ado about nothing.
Think of it this way: would you be OK with it if I set up a roadblock between the street you live on and the next
Except, it's nothing like that.
If I'm parked in a parking space, and will be vacating it soon, I'm not denying you access to it, because it's not available to you at the moment. What I'm selling is the fact that I will be vacating it.
Yes, it was a bad analogy.
However, in most cities I've been to, it's illegal to loiter in a parking space longer than necessary. In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
That's the comparison I was making - selling access to public property. A more relevant analogy would have been, "if a group of skinheads refused to leave the park pavilion until you paid them..." but the resultant point is the same: Unless you're the government, you can't legally sell access to publicly owned lands.
If your taxes paid for it, WTF are you putting money into a meter for if your taxes have paid for it already?
Honestly? I see it as rent-seeking.
Which is bullshit that the government gets away with it, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with the idea of letting even more people get away with selling me access to land I already own. At least, in the government's case, they can claim the revenue goes back into public services.
It's not stealing. It might be a little on the 'asshole' end of the spectrum, but it's not stealing.
Selling access to public land is fraud, which is a type of stealing, by definition.
Well, for one thing, it's illegal to loiter. It's also illegal to intentionally disrupt the flow of traffic, stare at a cell-phone screen while driving, and block-then-sell access to public lands.
So... take your pick. For me, it's the selling access to publicly owned property that's the key issue.
How are you going to prove B would have moved earlier if not for A? Reading their mind?
Um, they advertised the space on the app?
Also, the fact that we just watched this hypothetical exchange.
If I saw someone pull up to an already-parked car, then exchange money with the person loitering in said parked car, then said parked car leaves, making sure that new car gets the spot he just vacated, I'd think I have all the proof I need that someone just sold access to public land. The ad records from the server are just icing on the cake.
the poor sod who will get fined/arrested will probably be just a man\woman who cant get any money in other way, he has just been told by someone by the phone to be there and let x have the sport when he comes around
I think it's funny how some of you guys seem to be under the impression that there will be enough demand in this not-yet-existent black market, that it would be profitable enough for people to use cartel-like tactics such as paying patsies to risk jail time by holding spaces.
What's next, parking space coyotes? Chopped-up bodies hung from overpasses to send warnings about snaking parking spaces other people paid for? Seriously, this is San Fran we're talking about, not Juarez.
Specific practices like driver using phone while driving, or curb parking time limits can certainly be regulated. But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information. Dislike it all you want, but people have freedom to do as they want.
They aren't making the exchange of info illegal. You can still say "For $30 I'll tell you where a perking spot is.." it's the "and I'll hold it for you until you arrive..." that is illegal. I think the city is justified in this position.
Also the "this app is only useful if you use it while behind the wheel" part. Not sure if dicking with a phone while driving is illegal in SF, but it is where I live.
I am currently legally occupying a place, because I've paid the parking meter or am still within the period I can be parked for free.
What I'm selling you is the information that, for the next 20 minutes, the opportunity for you to get dibs on legally occupying the same space is up for grabs.
You don't get to "call dibs" on public space; this isn't fucking pre-school, there are no frontsies, backsies, or seat-savies in adult life.
Think of it this way: would you be OK with it if I set up a roadblock between the street you live on and the next, and demanded you pay me $50 to pass my checkpoint? Because that's essentially what this app does: encourages people to illegally squat on public land, then try to fleece the rest of the population by forcing them to pay for the privilege of parking in a space their taxes already paid for.
So actually, it is stealing, in several different ways.
On the subject of holding public spaces hostage, I wonder what you think of occupy movement and all the other protests, which are especially common in San Francisco?
False equivalence.
Sitting in one spot in the park for 3 days is not the same thing as sitting in one spot in the park for three days, demanding that anyone else who wants to use said spot has to pay you to leave.
Having to pay people a ransom to vacate public spaces is probably not a precedent we want to set.
Loitering is illegal. Selling use of public spaces is illegal (if you're not the government). Dicking with a cell phone while in the driver's seat is, in many place, illegal.
This app encourages people to commit all the above crimes and likely more, which makes the app developers co-conspirators at best, and directly liable at worst.
The way I see it (which also appears to be the way SF see it), this app encourages people to break several laws - laws against using a phone while driving, laws against loitering, et. al.
That said, I'm pretty sure you can't legally encourage people to commit crimes without committing one yourself; for example, if you encourage someone to murder someone else, that's either accessory or conspiracy, depending on locale and to what level, exactly, that you offered encouragement.
Actually, I was expanding on your original post, since "well, we have your money now, so you're screwed" appears to be growing in popularity as an excuse for poor customer service.
But yea, he's going to be hard-pressed to show actual damages; I mean, I guess he could bring up the price differential of Bitcoins between Month A and Month B, and show how much income he could have made if his rig had arrived on time and functioned as advertised...
Kinda like how if I promised to build you a fence for X dollars by Y date, and fail to meet the agreed upon pricing and schedule, well, that's your fault for trusting me, now isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
>Remember when people used to say that about GPS-enabled cell phones?
No
>Now every cell phone is GPS-enabled.
>Got any other ideas?
Go to settings and turn "GPS" to off?
Stop being a luddite?
"Oh noes, GPS. Now I can tell where I am on a map. "
How horrible.
Sorry, since this is Slashdot I was expecting that I would be speaking to a rational adult.
Forgot that school's out.
FYI, so you know - "dur, yer uh Luddite" is not a substitute for a valid argument. It's actually a pretty douchey cop-out.
So then don't buy and install these products.
Remember when people used to say that about GPS-enabled cell phones? "Well, if you don't want one, don't buy one."
Now every cell phone is GPS-enabled.
So much for that non-solution. Got any other ideas?
Posting a summary of your own blog post? Poor form, sir.
This is all nice and good, but I feel that public transport is just a stopgap till we get (pooled) self-driving cars. I'm talking about something like uber but with electric self-driving cars.
Which is just a stopgap until we develop teleportation technology. Which is just a stopgap until we evolve beyond the need for transportation at all.
Yes, I'm being sardonic. I tend to get that way when I see people essentially whining that existing technology only exists because non-existent technology doesn't exist - It just seems like a silly way of thinking.
Yes, and in another movie from the 1970's, I seem to recall hyperdrives, lightsabers and a death star...
I'm not trying to make a political comment one way or the other, but implementing -- and the extent to which this actually is the case remains to be seen -- an idea from an older movie doesn't mean it's not innovative, from an engineering standpoint.
Not necessarily, but the fact that maglevs are far from being new technology makes it not-so-innovative, from a literary standpoint.
the start up nation...at it again. how is it that a country of 7M people struggling for peace amongst hostile neighbors continues to out innovate the world.
Well, aside from the fact that the Israeli government's actions have been anything but a "struggle for peace," I fail to see how talking about building something that I remember seeing in a movie from the 1970's* is all that "innovative."
Perhaps if y'all want to be 'innovative,' you should try showing some humility for once.
* Logan's Run, in case you were wondering.
In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
Is it really?
Yes. Note the qualifier, "In every place I've been to."
I know there are people who are paid to stand in line at the Supreme Court for popular cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-business-of-waiting-in-line/2012/03/25/gIQAhFJkZS_blog.html). There were talks about passing new laws to ban it, but it's not illegal yet
Well, that's fuckt. I don't agree with selling access to the SCOTUS, but of course, if you think about it, they aren't selling "access" so much as seating space in a viewing gallery (We, the People, don't get access to SCOTUS judges). Principle's the same, though - it's a public place, and should be equal access.
Well, my answer to the question would be, "None of your business," or, "I don't want to answer your questions," or, "Please leave me alone."
It's a crime to lie to a federal agent. It is rare that it's a crime to lie to a non-federal law enforcement officer. It's no crime to remain silent or refuse to answer questions.
OK, so you refuse to respond and he tells you to leave, and if you don't, he arrests you for "disobeying a lawful order." Of course, assuming the cop in this hypothetical found you via your ad in a 'sell this public parking space' app, he might not even bother to say anything other than reading you your rights.
2 main points I'm making here: 1, the government will always win in this fight. 2, no single person has a right to hold publicly-owned land for ransom.
I agree that governments will do whatever they can to shut down any market with which they disapprove.
FTFY. But I can't say I disagree with shutting down a market that involves ransoming property I already own back to me.
*golf clap*
Well played, sexconker. Well played...
One can only envision the hilarity that will ensue when every neighborhood dog decides to go after these things. What's the counter to that? Equipping them with pepper spray like the mailman has? That could also prove to be amusing.
Doesn't take much imagination: some idiot weaponizes his toy, flies it over someone else's property, and causes harm to either persons or property via said weaponization; subsequent criminal and civil suits ensure that other people will think twice about weaponizing a toy and using it to assault other people/properties.
Yet another example of a retarded Libertarian with a slashdot account.
So, are you going to explain why a hundred drones delivering packages is magically much more dangerous than a truck-load of Amazon packages crashing into a packed school playground?
Aside from the false equivalence ("delivering packages" vs "crashing into a... school playground?" Really dude?), It's not magical at all - a truck can't fall out of the sky onto, er, another truck, causing the driver to crash into a packed school playground. A hundred drones, on the other hand, very much can fall from the sky and cause damage/harm to anything that happens to be below.
To me, that doesn't seem like the sort of thing that requires explanation; ie, the fact that "thing that flies over you" is inherently more dangerous than "thing that doesn't leave the ground."
If you're feeding a meter (ie, giving the government money), I'm guessing they'll look the other way most times.
Surely we aren't talking about an app that auctions access solely to metered parking spaces? I assumed it was geared towards free, non-timed parking.
Loitering is rarely illegal and anti-loitering statutes have been ruled unconstitutional.
Unless you are loitering with the clear intent to commit a crime you are pretty much free to hang out on any street, as Souter said, "...just to watch cars go by."
So, when the cop sees you still sitting in your car after his third trip around the block, stops to ask what your business is, and you tell him "I'm waiting for the guy who bought this parking space from me to come and take it," He's going to arrest you for fraud, not loitering.
Unless you commit a felony by lying to the police officer about your reasoning... at which point, that moral high ground you think you're taking just flew right out from under you.
Of course, if it becomes enough of an issue, the SF government can and will create new laws that make this practice functionally illegal, so the whole conversation is much ado about nothing.
Except, it's nothing like that.
If I'm parked in a parking space, and will be vacating it soon, I'm not denying you access to it, because it's not available to you at the moment. What I'm selling is the fact that I will be vacating it.
Yes, it was a bad analogy.
However, in most cities I've been to, it's illegal to loiter in a parking space longer than necessary. In every place I've been to (in the US), it's illegal to sell access to public property.
That's the comparison I was making - selling access to public property. A more relevant analogy would have been, "if a group of skinheads refused to leave the park pavilion until you paid them..." but the resultant point is the same: Unless you're the government, you can't legally sell access to publicly owned lands.
If your taxes paid for it, WTF are you putting money into a meter for if your taxes have paid for it already?
Honestly? I see it as rent-seeking.
Which is bullshit that the government gets away with it, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with the idea of letting even more people get away with selling me access to land I already own. At least, in the government's case, they can claim the revenue goes back into public services.
It's not stealing. It might be a little on the 'asshole' end of the spectrum, but it's not stealing.
Selling access to public land is fraud, which is a type of stealing, by definition.
I wonder if someone could aggregate and sell realtime information about empty parking spaces.
As long as they aren't actively encouraging people to break laws, like the app in question, I don't see where there would be a legal issue.
And what exact public law is being broken now?
Well, for one thing, it's illegal to loiter. It's also illegal to intentionally disrupt the flow of traffic, stare at a cell-phone screen while driving, and block-then-sell access to public lands.
So... take your pick. For me, it's the selling access to publicly owned property that's the key issue.
How are you going to prove B would have moved earlier if not for A? Reading their mind?
Um, they advertised the space on the app?
Also, the fact that we just watched this hypothetical exchange.
If I saw someone pull up to an already-parked car, then exchange money with the person loitering in said parked car, then said parked car leaves, making sure that new car gets the spot he just vacated, I'd think I have all the proof I need that someone just sold access to public land. The ad records from the server are just icing on the cake.
the poor sod who will get fined/arrested will probably be just a man\woman who cant get any money in other way, he has just been told by someone by the phone to be there and let x have the sport when he comes around
I think it's funny how some of you guys seem to be under the impression that there will be enough demand in this not-yet-existent black market, that it would be profitable enough for people to use cartel-like tactics such as paying patsies to risk jail time by holding spaces.
What's next, parking space coyotes? Chopped-up bodies hung from overpasses to send warnings about snaking parking spaces other people paid for? Seriously, this is San Fran we're talking about, not Juarez.
Specific practices like driver using phone while driving, or curb parking time limits can certainly be regulated. But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information. Dislike it all you want, but people have freedom to do as they want.
They aren't making the exchange of info illegal. You can still say "For $30 I'll tell you where a perking spot is.." it's the "and I'll hold it for you until you arrive ..." that is illegal. I think the city is justified in this position.
Also the "this app is only useful if you use it while behind the wheel" part. Not sure if dicking with a phone while driving is illegal in SF, but it is where I live.
I think stealing is a little incorrect here.
I am currently legally occupying a place, because I've paid the parking meter or am still within the period I can be parked for free.
What I'm selling you is the information that, for the next 20 minutes, the opportunity for you to get dibs on legally occupying the same space is up for grabs.
You don't get to "call dibs" on public space; this isn't fucking pre-school, there are no frontsies, backsies, or seat-savies in adult life.
Think of it this way: would you be OK with it if I set up a roadblock between the street you live on and the next, and demanded you pay me $50 to pass my checkpoint? Because that's essentially what this app does: encourages people to illegally squat on public land, then try to fleece the rest of the population by forcing them to pay for the privilege of parking in a space their taxes already paid for.
So actually, it is stealing, in several different ways.
On the subject of holding public spaces hostage, I wonder what you think of occupy movement and all the other protests, which are especially common in San Francisco?
False equivalence.
Sitting in one spot in the park for 3 days is not the same thing as sitting in one spot in the park for three days, demanding that anyone else who wants to use said spot has to pay you to leave.
Having to pay people a ransom to vacate public spaces is probably not a precedent we want to set.
The accuser has the burden of proof.
They have it.
Loitering is illegal. Selling use of public spaces is illegal (if you're not the government). Dicking with a cell phone while in the driver's seat is, in many place, illegal.
This app encourages people to commit all the above crimes and likely more, which makes the app developers co-conspirators at best, and directly liable at worst.
The way I see it (which also appears to be the way SF see it), this app encourages people to break several laws - laws against using a phone while driving, laws against loitering, et. al.
That said, I'm pretty sure you can't legally encourage people to commit crimes without committing one yourself; for example, if you encourage someone to murder someone else, that's either accessory or conspiracy, depending on locale and to what level, exactly, that you offered encouragement.
Actually, I was expanding on your original post, since "well, we have your money now, so you're screwed" appears to be growing in popularity as an excuse for poor customer service.
But yea, he's going to be hard-pressed to show actual damages; I mean, I guess he could bring up the price differential of Bitcoins between Month A and Month B, and show how much income he could have made if his rig had arrived on time and functioned as advertised...
Right.
Kinda like how if I promised to build you a fence for X dollars by Y date, and fail to meet the agreed upon pricing and schedule, well, that's your fault for trusting me, now isn't it?