Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Regulation is no panacea and can be a plague. Many regulations cure a non-existent problem. Some regulations are viewed by the regulated industry as a barrier to entry, and that keeps their competition low. And there's always the problem of regulatory capture.
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
That's one of the largest barriers to entry. When licenses are less a certification that the industry meets minimum requirements and more an arbitrary limit to the number of competitors then the value of the license goes really high, and the competitors are able to keep prices artificially high.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
See also: regulatory capture.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
How do you explain the fact that the entrenched players are the ones who are fighting Uber, rather than people who have been injured by Uber's failings?
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry.
...and the people who want to hire them. Don't forget about them.
They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
It appears to me that it's possible for an entity to be both, simultaneously. Someone could be fighting the good fight and at the same time be a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
Fanciful comparisons aside, maybe Uber is right. You have certainly not refuted their arguments in your post.
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
Do you hold any opinions on scheduling companies?
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
Well, I think I'm not a cab company. And I begin to suspect you are one. Whatever--let me say this; one man's hoodwink is another man's political activism.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Ooooh! So close you nearly convince me.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
You know--when I went to Uni I gave my roommate rides from his home to the campus. I charged him half the cost of petrol. I suppose I should have paid USD100.000 for a shield.
Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.
I think that really should be the choice of the person choosing which taxi service to use. If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choice. If Uber, or anyone, wishes to provide a service screening potential drivers, and if they are successful enough (read--as successful as standard taxi services, or nearly-so,) then they should have that choice. If soccer mom decides that Uber is safe enough for her concerns then she should have that choice. Frankly, this looks to me like a blatant attempt by the standard taxi companies to keep competition out of the market.
Apropos of nothing, I note that you wouldn't use such a service, so you're suggesting a law that wouldn't affect your choices, but which would keep other people from being able to make theirs.
Welcome to LIFE 101. Humans have kids, if your business runs on such thin margins that you cant account for that, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HIRING EMPLOYEES, period. Humans have babies, it MUST be accounted for. If you are running your business without accounting for this, then you are a shitty human.
Thereby proving Archangel Michael's point about political correctness. Just to be clear, are you saying that it's much more acceptable for people to be unemployed than for employers to pay more for their more valuable employees?
I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".
To be clear...do you claim that one shouldn't take a "pro choice" person seriously unless that person is against all coercion? In particular, a pro choice person should permit a person to hire and fire whomever they will, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation? They should allow people to collude together to restrict prices, markets, entry, engage in price gouging and any other means to increase profits. They should be able to spray whatever weedkiller, fertilizer, or other chemical on their lawns they wish. They should be able to decide how much of their money goes to the poor, unwed mothers, drug addicts, sick, or arts. They should be able to quit the military any time they wish, including on the battle front while engaged with the enemy. A pro choice person should be in favor of allowing a person to make any choice whatsoever. Is that what you claim?
Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro life" very narrowly?
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Do you hold the same opinion of "pro choice" people?
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".
The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.
How about if you were to go to the conference and ask them, "Do you deny that you're attacking the university?" Or, "Why are you abusing the reputation of the University for your own gain? Wouldn't you agree that's a despicable act?"
Argument from authority is a popular tactic with Creationists.
There is no argument from authority fallacy. There is an argument from inexpert authority fallacy, and there is an objective procedure for determining whether an authority is expert.
But see that won't work because these people are not in any way, shape, or form 'rational' to start with; logic and reason won't work on someone who believes in fairy-tale level nonsense.
Why, these people aren't even human. They're less than human--or, if you prefer the latin, untermenschen.
They will also find a speaker with an impressive title that implies that he is a respected scientist and try to give the impression that serious/rational scientists believe their fairy stories. It might not get far with most slashdot readers, but it will sound good and 'may be right' to many; most people do not have much understanding of science - these are their target audience - the masses, not the educated minorities - enough to keep the collecting plates full at the churches.
So...what you're saying is that people with impressive titles aren't to be trusted, and impressionable people need to be protected from believing the wrong things?
The world would be a better place if corporations had to be objective and stick to the facts when advertising their goods.
And while we're at it we can make it illegal for politicians to make claims they don't follow through with. And religions. Religions can't make any claims they can't objectively prove. And political action committees. And athiests. Athiests won't be able to claim there is no god unless they can prove there is none. And the press. The press won't be able to report anything unless the reporter actually saw and understands it. I'm sick and tired of reading science reports where the reporter gets the basic science wrong. You know, I think you may be on to something here. Perhaps we could have a Ministry of Truth, and the Ministry of Truth could have two books. One book could list everything that's mandatory, and the other everything that's forbidden. Everything that can be spoken or written would be in one of those two books. In no time at all we would have Utopia.
The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.
Agreed. And the correct ruling in this case is that all of the purported misstatements are inactionable statements of opinion, optimism, or puffery, and that the owners of the corporation have a right to make those statements, and that the government may not infringe them.
Corporations are not just people, but protected people now.
That worries me. Suppose a policeman admitted that people had a right against unreasonable search and seizure, but homes don't. Since this home doesn't have any rights then it's perfectly alright to search the papers and effects in this home. Denied? OMG!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that houses are protected people.
The definition of puffery requires that the customer doesn't take the claim seriously.
Not "customer," but rather "ordinary consumers." For the courts to reward the customers who believe the claims and not those who didn't would be to reward the people who are gullible--or at least those who claim to be gullible.
It sounds like the investors (the customers in this case, in a sense) did indeed take them seriously.
A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts.
What if they write a sequel with a plot twist where the girl was actually a Taiwanese 25-year old police woman who was undercover in the school trying to find illegal song downloaders? Will he get out of gaol retroactively?
I wonder if stores' unwillingness to take $50 and $100 bills actually helps work against inflation as consumers end up putting a relative-value compared to the $20 on items for sale.
No, at least according to Milton Friedman. He once said, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
I... This isn't talking about people buying drugs or something. This is about counterfeiting money or laundering money or downright stealing money. They're all reprehensible activities, I hope you will agree.
Of course. Right. Well, unless it's the government doing it. Then it's okay. But otherwise, reprehensible.
But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?
Yes. On the other hand, if you believe in the organic origin of oil and coal then you believe that same carbon was once in the atmosphere after which it was bound by plants and then sequestered underground.
It's very simple. The bottom of the ocean is COLD. There's not going to be much circulation going on between the upper warmer layers and the bottom.
Yes. That's rather the point. Climate models predicted increased temperatures. Temperatures didn't increase, therefore the climate models were seriously broken. Climate models could be fixed if the heat was going into the deep ocean. Heat was not going into the deep ocean. Therefore climate models cannot be fixed that way.
"Insightful" doesn't mean "agrees with dywolf. Nor does it mean incontrovertibly true. "Insightful" means "adds to the conversation." (For examples of non-insightful comments see inter alia frist psot, ascii penis.)
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Regulation is no panacea and can be a plague. Many regulations cure a non-existent problem. Some regulations are viewed by the regulated industry as a barrier to entry, and that keeps their competition low. And there's always the problem of regulatory capture.
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
That's one of the largest barriers to entry. When licenses are less a certification that the industry meets minimum requirements and more an arbitrary limit to the number of competitors then the value of the license goes really high, and the competitors are able to keep prices artificially high.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
See also: regulatory capture.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
How do you explain the fact that the entrenched players are the ones who are fighting Uber, rather than people who have been injured by Uber's failings?
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry.
They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
It appears to me that it's possible for an entity to be both, simultaneously. Someone could be fighting the good fight and at the same time be a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
Fanciful comparisons aside, maybe Uber is right. You have certainly not refuted their arguments in your post.
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
Do you hold any opinions on scheduling companies?
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
Well, I think I'm not a cab company. And I begin to suspect you are one. Whatever--let me say this; one man's hoodwink is another man's political activism.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Ooooh! So close you nearly convince me.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
You know--when I went to Uni I gave my roommate rides from his home to the campus. I charged him half the cost of petrol. I suppose I should have paid USD100.000 for a shield.
~Loyal
Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.
I think that really should be the choice of the person choosing which taxi service to use. If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choice. If Uber, or anyone, wishes to provide a service screening potential drivers, and if they are successful enough (read--as successful as standard taxi services, or nearly-so,) then they should have that choice. If soccer mom decides that Uber is safe enough for her concerns then she should have that choice. Frankly, this looks to me like a blatant attempt by the standard taxi companies to keep competition out of the market.
Apropos of nothing, I note that you wouldn't use such a service, so you're suggesting a law that wouldn't affect your choices, but which would keep other people from being able to make theirs.
~Loyal
Welcome to LIFE 101. Humans have kids, if your business runs on such thin margins that you cant account for that, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HIRING EMPLOYEES, period. Humans have babies, it MUST be accounted for. If you are running your business without accounting for this, then you are a shitty human.
Thereby proving Archangel Michael's point about political correctness. Just to be clear, are you saying that it's much more acceptable for people to be unemployed than for employers to pay more for their more valuable employees?
~Loyal
What other reasons? dumbass.
Strangely, among other reasons women are much more likely than men to require maternity leave. I have no idea what that stems from.
~Loyal
Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro choice" very narrowly?
FTFM
~Loyal
I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".
To be clear...do you claim that one shouldn't take a "pro choice" person seriously unless that person is against all coercion? In particular, a pro choice person should permit a person to hire and fire whomever they will, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation? They should allow people to collude together to restrict prices, markets, entry, engage in price gouging and any other means to increase profits. They should be able to spray whatever weedkiller, fertilizer, or other chemical on their lawns they wish. They should be able to decide how much of their money goes to the poor, unwed mothers, drug addicts, sick, or arts. They should be able to quit the military any time they wish, including on the battle front while engaged with the enemy. A pro choice person should be in favor of allowing a person to make any choice whatsoever. Is that what you claim?
Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro life" very narrowly?
~Loyal
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Do you hold the same opinion of "pro choice" people?
~Loyal
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".
The group then used the University's name in all their press materials, giving them false credibility.
Didn't they have to use the University's name so people would know where to attend?
~Loyal
The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.
How about if you were to go to the conference and ask them, "Do you deny that you're attacking the university?" Or, "Why are you abusing the reputation of the University for your own gain? Wouldn't you agree that's a despicable act?"
~Loyal
Argument from authority is a popular tactic with Creationists.
There is no argument from authority fallacy. There is an argument from inexpert authority fallacy, and there is an objective procedure for determining whether an authority is expert.
~Loyal
No, there are many people who have impressive titles who can be trusted.
So, how does one decide whom can be trusted?
Further, are you saying that impressionable people need to be protected from believing the wrong things?
~Loyal
Ah, Godwin.
Is there a reason you believe Godwin's Conjecture to be true?
~Loyal
But see that won't work because these people are not in any way, shape, or form 'rational' to start with; logic and reason won't work on someone who believes in fairy-tale level nonsense.
Why, these people aren't even human. They're less than human--or, if you prefer the latin, untermenschen.
~Loyal
They will also find a speaker with an impressive title that implies that he is a respected scientist and try to give the impression that serious/rational scientists believe their fairy stories. It might not get far with most slashdot readers, but it will sound good and 'may be right' to many; most people do not have much understanding of science - these are their target audience - the masses, not the educated minorities - enough to keep the collecting plates full at the churches.
So...what you're saying is that people with impressive titles aren't to be trusted, and impressionable people need to be protected from believing the wrong things?
~Loyal
The world would be a better place if corporations had to be objective and stick to the facts when advertising their goods.
And while we're at it we can make it illegal for politicians to make claims they don't follow through with. And religions. Religions can't make any claims they can't objectively prove. And political action committees. And athiests. Athiests won't be able to claim there is no god unless they can prove there is none. And the press. The press won't be able to report anything unless the reporter actually saw and understands it. I'm sick and tired of reading science reports where the reporter gets the basic science wrong. You know, I think you may be on to something here. Perhaps we could have a Ministry of Truth, and the Ministry of Truth could have two books. One book could list everything that's mandatory, and the other everything that's forbidden. Everything that can be spoken or written would be in one of those two books. In no time at all we would have Utopia.
~Loyal
The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.
Agreed. And the correct ruling in this case is that all of the purported misstatements are inactionable statements of opinion, optimism, or puffery, and that the owners of the corporation have a right to make those statements, and that the government may not infringe them.
~Loyal
Corporations are not just people, but protected people now.
That worries me. Suppose a policeman admitted that people had a right against unreasonable search and seizure, but homes don't. Since this home doesn't have any rights then it's perfectly alright to search the papers and effects in this home. Denied? OMG!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that houses are protected people.
~Loyal
The definition of puffery requires that the customer doesn't take the claim seriously.
Not "customer," but rather "ordinary consumers." For the courts to reward the customers who believe the claims and not those who didn't would be to reward the people who are gullible--or at least those who claim to be gullible.
It sounds like the investors (the customers in this case, in a sense) did indeed take them seriously.
They have a vested interest to make that claim.
~Loyal
A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts.
What if they write a sequel with a plot twist where the girl was actually a Taiwanese 25-year old police woman who was undercover in the school trying to find illegal song downloaders? Will he get out of gaol retroactively?
~Loyal
I wonder if stores' unwillingness to take $50 and $100 bills actually helps work against inflation as consumers end up putting a relative-value compared to the $20 on items for sale.
No, at least according to Milton Friedman. He once said, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
~Loyal
I... This isn't talking about people buying drugs or something. This is about counterfeiting money or laundering money or downright stealing money. They're all reprehensible activities, I hope you will agree.
Of course. Right. Well, unless it's the government doing it. Then it's okay. But otherwise, reprehensible.
~Loyal
But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?
Yes. On the other hand, if you believe in the organic origin of oil and coal then you believe that same carbon was once in the atmosphere after which it was bound by plants and then sequestered underground.
~Loyal
It's very simple. The bottom of the ocean is COLD. There's not going to be much circulation going on between the upper warmer layers and the bottom.
Yes. That's rather the point. Climate models predicted increased temperatures. Temperatures didn't increase, therefore the climate models were seriously broken. Climate models could be fixed if the heat was going into the deep ocean. Heat was not going into the deep ocean. Therefore climate models cannot be fixed that way.
~Loyal
ignorant AC mdoded insightful by ignorant mods.
"Insightful" doesn't mean "agrees with dywolf. Nor does it mean incontrovertibly true. "Insightful" means "adds to the conversation." (For examples of non-insightful comments see inter alia frist psot, ascii penis.)
~Loyal