Either 1) the test has value and the driver's can remain a premium service, maybe even get added to uber like cabs in San fransisco 2) the knowledge is not if value and should be ditched.
I hear a lot of cab advocates trying to have it both ways. "it's no fair, our service is so much better because of the specific cars and the test, but uber drivers don't". If the service was so much better, there wouldn't be an issue, it's been a while since I was in London, but in northern Delaware, Philadelphia, and NYC, uber is far better than the cab companies. Probably because they know pulling bullshit will get them a low review and out of the service. In my location, I'd pay a 10% premium to use uber over cabs.
I love uber because I live in a medium sized city (250k people in a 30-45 minute to cross by car metro area).
How it used to work with cabs: I call, they ask where I am. They kind of grumble and asknwhere I'm going. Then they say, nope. Try again with company two, they agree, tell me a driver will be there in 45 minutes, driver comes in 90. Driver is a dick about the trip not being long enough, and refuses to take cards "oh, no, that's really just for the airport, that's why it's painted on our car that we accept them for all fairs". Driver also is always asking me for directions.
With uber. Push button, five minutes later a driver shows up, happily GPSs to my location, and I give them five star rating.
The cab industry's legality was merely a way for them to be abusively anti consumer. I'm glad a company came and skirted the law to make getting a ride something I can do and a pleasant experiance. If the cab industry's protectionism was a give and take, I'd feel different. For example the post office pretty efficiently delivers letters, and they do it cheaply nationwide, while maintaining plenty of physical presence. They're exclusive priveledge of non express mail allows them to service areas cheaply that never otherwise would be. The cab industry on the otherhand used the exclusivity to do the opposite ( only serve the absolute most profitable jobs).
I would like labeling because I can afford to spend a little extra to stick to my values.
I think sterile (in therory) seeds of a monoculture are a long term risk to the food supply. If there was proper labeling, those of us with money could vote against that with our wallets, and at least give the non GMO producers a chance. Without labeling, all of the food will end up as GMO.
Additionally, there's been allegations that weeds are rapidly developing resistance anyway (I haven't seen anything that credible either for or against this), so in the end we end up using tons more herbicides (allegedly).
I'm not anti-GMO, and I eat corn products, so I definitely eat it, I still think it should need to be labeled.
I just purchased The Walking Dead, it was $28 for the season (I assume this cracks out to just under the $2/episode they charge if purchased individually). It's more than I want to pay, but the only part of the price that's outright offensive to me is that the HD version was nearly $50.
A TV show with ads gets about $2/viewer (for prime demographics, I did the math on Grey's Anatomy once), so the pricing is fair I guess.
What's always shocked me is that Hulu, with their ads, and base subscription isn't making companies extra money. 1) the ads are unskipable 2) view whenever means more viewers
They generally only have the same small handful of ads, and half are for Hulu itself, so clearly it isn't working, but I don't get why.
I will say that I'm a happy subscriber to the ad free version, and am still tens of dollars less a month than cable (I have Hulu, HBO, Netflix, and Internet, I'm actually contemplating dropping HBO and Hulu, and Internet and using free netflix streaming on Tmobile exclusively.
If sounds like you essentially believe the civil system should be the primary source of enforcement?
The issue with that is it doesn't prevent bad behavior (it pretty much legalizes risk taking), and many of the outcomes can be too bad for a person to make nice.
This exactly, though I don't mind images, and even a few frames of movement.
But Google upended advertising by doing less annoying ads than the competition, but targeting them well.
They remain relatively less annoying advertisers I think, but they should definitely lead by example.
Of course this benefits them, they're powerful data collection means they can do beat with the simple ads, simpler advertising will give them more market share.
I know US customary units are common here in the US, but I doesn't think the imperial system was used anywhere, except for people giving weights in stones.
The legal question is calling an uber calling a mini cab (closer to what we call a black car in new York, but the black cabs in London are like the yellow cabs in new york), or is it like flagging down a black cab.
If it's the equivelent of contacting a company with an itinerary, and not flagging down a driver as they pass, it is indeed legal.
Also, who the fuck cares about "the knowledge" anymore? It was amazing how good the cabs were in London, but there's GPS now. The knowledge is a lot less relevant.
Yeah, the summary sounds so stupid I'm almost tempted to read the article.
I think unfriending can be bullying, fo example if a group of people all decide to unfriend someone to ostricize them, or if someone tries to get other people to.
But simply unfriending someone that you don't wanna see their shit, and don't want them up in your personal life is totally fine (well should be).
In my focus it would cut acceleration if the wheels were spinning faster than the car was moving (ever so rarely when starting in rain and a decent amount in snow)
When trapped in snow or mud, you need to spin the wheels a little bit. Also when powering through a puddle you probably shouldn't be driving through
The owners manual explains reason one in the how to get out of a snow drift section.
Slashdot Mirror
Either
1) the test has value and the driver's can remain a premium service, maybe even get added to uber like cabs in San fransisco
2) the knowledge is not if value and should be ditched.
I hear a lot of cab advocates trying to have it both ways. "it's no fair, our service is so much better because of the specific cars and the test, but uber drivers don't". If the service was so much better, there wouldn't be an issue, it's been a while since I was in London, but in northern Delaware, Philadelphia, and NYC, uber is far better than the cab companies. Probably because they know pulling bullshit will get them a low review and out of the service. In my location, I'd pay a 10% premium to use uber over cabs.
So basically, black cabs are objectively better and should be able to maintain a price premium?
What they should do then is do what the cabs do in San Fransisco, and get themselves added as a button in uber.
I love uber because I live in a medium sized city (250k people in a 30-45 minute to cross by car metro area).
How it used to work with cabs:
I call, they ask where I am. They kind of grumble and asknwhere I'm going. Then they say, nope. Try again with company two, they agree, tell me a driver will be there in 45 minutes, driver comes in 90. Driver is a dick about the trip not being long enough, and refuses to take cards "oh, no, that's really just for the airport, that's why it's painted on our car that we accept them for all fairs". Driver also is always asking me for directions.
With uber. Push button, five minutes later a driver shows up, happily GPSs to my location, and I give them five star rating.
The cab industry's legality was merely a way for them to be abusively anti consumer. I'm glad a company came and skirted the law to make getting a ride something I can do and a pleasant experiance. If the cab industry's protectionism was a give and take, I'd feel different. For example the post office pretty efficiently delivers letters, and they do it cheaply nationwide, while maintaining plenty of physical presence. They're exclusive priveledge of non express mail allows them to service areas cheaply that never otherwise would be. The cab industry on the otherhand used the exclusivity to do the opposite ( only serve the absolute most profitable jobs).
I would like labeling because I can afford to spend a little extra to stick to my values.
I think sterile (in therory) seeds of a monoculture are a long term risk to the food supply. If there was proper labeling, those of us with money could vote against that with our wallets, and at least give the non GMO producers a chance. Without labeling, all of the food will end up as GMO.
Additionally, there's been allegations that weeds are rapidly developing resistance anyway (I haven't seen anything that credible either for or against this), so in the end we end up using tons more herbicides (allegedly).
I'm not anti-GMO, and I eat corn products, so I definitely eat it, I still think it should need to be labeled.
If I wasn't stressing timeliness, Netflix streaming would work too.
And it's a thing that's happened before cockpit doors.
If enything, the slower decent chosen because of the doors gives more time to back out.
My friend had his laser tag set out into special gun boxes and checked once when I was in middle school (80s)
I just purchased The Walking Dead, it was $28 for the season (I assume this cracks out to just under the $2/episode they charge if purchased individually). It's more than I want to pay, but the only part of the price that's outright offensive to me is that the HD version was nearly $50.
A TV show with ads gets about $2/viewer (for prime demographics, I did the math on Grey's Anatomy once), so the pricing is fair I guess.
What's always shocked me is that Hulu, with their ads, and base subscription isn't making companies extra money.
1) the ads are unskipable
2) view whenever means more viewers
They generally only have the same small handful of ads, and half are for Hulu itself, so clearly it isn't working, but I don't get why.
I will say that I'm a happy subscriber to the ad free version, and am still tens of dollars less a month than cable (I have Hulu, HBO, Netflix, and Internet, I'm actually contemplating dropping HBO and Hulu, and Internet and using free netflix streaming on Tmobile exclusively.
If sounds like you essentially believe the civil system should be the primary source of enforcement?
The issue with that is it doesn't prevent bad behavior (it pretty much legalizes risk taking), and many of the outcomes can be too bad for a person to make nice.
If I use the amazon app to shop on ios, does apple really take a third?
They should prioritize VPNs.
Or at least offer a work from home package that does.
Added latency in my VPN would have me leaving my ISP.
They can't provide 10mbps per a second all of the time to everybody, well they can, but they wouldn't be able to sell it.
That type of bandwidth is expensive, that isn't to say that ISPs aren't over sold, only that a certain amount of overselling is necissary.
This exactly, though I don't mind images, and even a few frames of movement.
But Google upended advertising by doing less annoying ads than the competition, but targeting them well.
They remain relatively less annoying advertisers I think, but they should definitely lead by example.
Of course this benefits them, they're powerful data collection means they can do beat with the simple ads, simpler advertising will give them more market share.
Additionally it shows the bank has no faith in the outsourced workers they are laying off Americans for.
Giving fuel for regulation on that.
Is imperial really used anywhere?
I know US customary units are common here in the US, but I doesn't think the imperial system was used anywhere, except for people giving weights in stones.
Except pints we're not pints the world round.
My check in involves filling out a couple web forms at home or while driving the the airport.
Check in is infinitely faster than it used to be, most airports have faster security too (not all though).
Fun fact, anon undoes moderation (assuming you checked the anon button).
The legal question is calling an uber calling a mini cab (closer to what we call a black car in new York, but the black cabs in London are like the yellow cabs in new york), or is it like flagging down a black cab.
If it's the equivelent of contacting a company with an itinerary, and not flagging down a driver as they pass, it is indeed legal.
Also, who the fuck cares about "the knowledge" anymore? It was amazing how good the cabs were in London, but there's GPS now. The knowledge is a lot less relevant.
I suspect it's the opposite, it'll show 3-5 star reviews, but not look at the text.
In the early 80s, SSN became required to receive child tax deductions (I believe it was then, part of regan closing loop holes).
I suspect this is when you received your SSNs. I am born 81, but have the SSN of someone born a few years later myself.
The algorithm exists, but it's not based on birth, it's based on registration.
Yeah, the summary sounds so stupid I'm almost tempted to read the article.
I think unfriending can be bullying, fo example if a group of people all decide to unfriend someone to ostricize them, or if someone tries to get other people to.
But simply unfriending someone that you don't wanna see their shit, and don't want them up in your personal life is totally fine (well should be).
Apple consistantly bets on itself too.
They purchased a huge percentage of the world's flash market to release the ipod nano.
They purchased a huge amount of the retina screens before releasing the iphone with retina.
They buy up a huge percentage of the just now becoming mainstream tech, and for 6 months or so do it for cheaper than anyone else can possibly.
They'll likely do similar with cars.
And it's hard to get better than near perfect reliability (which is where my ford focus was, and where I expect my Honda Ridgeline to be).
Cars are really pretty good now, with 150k being where they stop acting like new.
Twice as long to compress, to compress then decompress, or to decompress?
They seem to be only claiming fast expansion.
In my focus it would cut acceleration if the wheels were spinning faster than the car was moving (ever so rarely when starting in rain and a decent amount in snow)
When trapped in snow or mud, you need to spin the wheels a little bit. Also when powering through a puddle you probably shouldn't be driving through
The owners manual explains reason one in the how to get out of a snow drift section.