*On a side note, background checks for gun ownerships also "just make sense" and likewise the republicans should allow it to happen.
...I might of missed something, but NICS, IE 'National Instant background Check System' has been in place for quite a while, hasn't it?
On the other hand, you also run into the same problem with private transfers in states that have passed laws such that even those have to go through the NICS check - they authorize dealers to charge for it, and thus a private transfer averages around $45 for the check(note, the actual check is free to the dealer, and takes about 10-15 minutes for the paperwork).
Personally, I think they'd have a much better response if they came up with a way for the check to be free even to individuals. Perhaps have the state police do it or something.
even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of a year - and therefore have the legal right to vote,
Disclaimer: All of my college experience has been in-state, but I did have a full military career where my state of citizenship didn't match my state of residence. I am not a lawyer or an election official. Seek the professional advice of your local ones if you have further questions, or at least hit up the state's election website.
As such, no, being a full time student 9 months out of the year in a state, by itself, does NOT give you the right to vote in that state.
You have to declare your intent to be a citizen of the state in question. One of the signs for that is getting your license transferred over. By continuing to use your home state's DL, you're declaring your residency there temporary, which means you'd properly vote absentee in your home state.
It helps if you consider that the conservatives are more against 'poor people' and disproportionally targeting blacks is a matter of they're more likely to be poor.
Or, if you still want a racist answer, that they target poor people because blacks tend to be poor and they can't target them directly.
Personally, I think conservatives just hate poor people of any color, for the most part. They're mostly fine with rich and middle class black people.
But, this was after the officer said I "must have enemies" and that was why I was scared of some random car flashing lights at me, and that even in other states, I should have known that car had a police officer in it.
Just as a note, I've lived in 7 states. In NONE of them would I assume that a somebody flashing their high beams at me while following like police officers like to do is a cop or has good intentions.
You don't need the translations for the names, you need them for the ballot initiatives. School bonds and the like.
That's actually what I was thinking of when I said 'sections'.
I could figure out the "important" elections like president, governor, federal and state congressional elections even if they were in Spanish, for example, by name recognition. Japanese would be... tougher.;)
Scantrons - eminently viable solution, thank you. Can be utilized completely without electricity if necessary, can be counted by both hand and by independent electronic machines, highly auditable.
Only problem is, as you say, somebody speaking a different language might need a special ballot(preferably in both english and the alternate), and a blind person would need assistance.
In the case of the different language, even that's not especially necessary - you can provide a handout with translations for the various sections, and that the names match up is 'good enough'. Obama is Obama, and McCain is McCain, for example.
I've always supported pen&paper voting, with e-machines, if used, only being used to produce a paper ballot.
If you have paper ballots, you can still recover from things like a power outage*, you can hand count the things if necessary, and if you declare the paper 'receipt' to be the official ballot, everything is countable and can be audited.
I've had some arguments with people about how electronic machines are more usable for those with disabilities, but see above - you can only do the best you can, and the security of the election should NOT be in question. Like it's going to be in Virginia until the last of those elected through the use of these machines are gone.
Does anybody know of any 'surprises' with results going against exit polls in the state?
*I know, low probability, but voting is serious business.
Don't forget "Don't happen to live on the route of a crooked UPS/USPS/Fedex driver" - fortunately only the dogs were killed in this one. But the raided Maryland Mayor is still rather pissed.
Storyline - package full of drugs found addressed to Mayor's house. They 'allowed it to be delivered*'. Mayor, seeing package addressed to wife on stoop, brings it inside and sticks it on the kitchen table for her. SWAT subsequently busts in and kills their dogs.
Turns out that it was the package delivery service driver that was crooked. They'd address packages for people along his route, mail them, but he'd intercept them before delivery.
Political shitstorm ensues as the Mayor actually knows how to make things painful for the department for raiding him and shooting his dogs. Even with this shitstorm, Sheriff refuses to apologize for raid, killing his dogs, illegal no-knock warrant, etc...
*Actually outside of normal shipping, an undercover officer placed it at the door.
You do now, at least one AC has said it. I've seen it on a number of other threads.
Of course, I'm not saying they're correct, but a lot of people also mix up self defense and punishment.
Still, when we've had unarmed people killed by officers for things like: Mentally ill, deaf(shot in back for not stopping walking away), wearing headphones(couldn't hear officer), diabetic shock*/coma, following police directives(show me your wallet!), putting their hands down, threatening to kill themselves with a knife**, etc...
*Effectively a subclass of mentally ill, they aren't processing inputs correctly anymore due to low blood sugar **woman called because boyfriend was threatening to kill himself with a knife, officers showed up and kicked her out, then pretty much immediately shot the man with their patrol rifles.
You know, this reminds me that there are police departments with, at any given time, a dozen or so improper use of force lawsuits against them, tens of millions in payouts a year, the department essentially treating said lawsuits like a cost of doing business(costs the city money, not them, not even their budget). Then there are neighboring cities/precincts that actually do their job correctly, DON'T kill a half a dozen or so people improperly every year, where ONE such lawsuit would be unusual.
We don't so much have a bad officer problem in the USA, we have a bad police department problem. The 10% worst departments are responsible for a lot more than 90% of our problems with police.
Responsible departments get rid of or reform 'bad egg' officers rather rapidly. Bad departments encourage them. See Sheriff Arpaio.
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
I think the major change for this would be ending the war on drugs. Seriously, it's the number one reason for officers to be sticking their noses into people's business, because it's the biggest category of 'consensual crime', where all parties involved are consenting, and thus unlikely to report that a crime is in progress to the police. Thus, in order to enforce said laws, they have to intrude on people's lives, into our privacy.
After that you have prostitution and gambling.
Get rid of consensual crime(at least most forms of it), and you'll see officers doing a lot more towards the peace than enforcement.
Add in the enormous number of 'legacy' police, that federal law enforcement is a tiny percentage of the total, and generally considered a higher status posting.
I can easily see it being that *most* police officers entering the force today have at least an associate's, but *most* police officers IN the force only have a high school diploma, perhaps with a non-degree police academy certificate.
That being said, you can have the same problem with police officers as you can with social workers. As odd as it may sound, by requiring a specific degree, they only get a specific sort of applicant, who's spent(in the case of the social worker) 4-6 years in what can amount to an echo chamber.
You can get graduates that take certain assumptions as gospel, and in either case, 'when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail'. They get stuck in a box when it comes to thinking about issues.
They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
Indeed. They've been caught, on video, tasering a non-responsive person in a diabetic coma for 'resisting', yelling all the while. Note, it's not just about 'resistance' today, it's about 'compliance'. IE you not only have to avoid resisting an officer, you have to be following their orders, sometimes beyond the best of your ability.
Another officer, female in this case, tasered a person into being a corpse, then shocked the corpse over a hundred times by the estimate of the coroner. When her training was examined, it was discovered that she had ZERO deescalation techniques, and no techniques OTHER than the taser to seek 'compliance'.
She was on video - "Put your hands behind your back" - Pause - SHOCK - "Put your hands behind your back".
Keep in mind that after about the third shock he wasn't resisting, he was non-responsive. He wasn't capable of complying.
I figure the taxi drivers see 'anything' as a threat and thus oppose it.
Still, looking at the graphic, they're turning a space that could be a 4 lane road into 2.
Still, more bicycles SHOULD equate to more taxi rides - more people ditch their cars for bicycles 'except' for xyz, which then logically leads to more cab rides.
Self driving cars should be what they're really worried about.
In which case, which phone, other than apple's, has the best battery cases available? Is it possible to mod a phone to have separate external contact points so as to avoid increasing the height of the phone too much?
Thoughts I had: 1. Balls might be more durable than cloth - if something lands on the balls, they simply shift out of the way, then back. The cloth might tear or be pulled to the bottom with whatever. Stand up to rain/hail better. 2. Cheaper - a 'floating shade cloth' might end up costing more per coverage, after all, it needs to be woven from thread and somehow made to float 3. Easier to place. As shown in the video, you can pretty much just dump the balls, with cloth you'd actually need to place it. The balls distribute themselves.
Other thoughts I've had from other posters: Beware of the desire for 'perfect' solutions. You don't have to stop all evaporation, but if you can cheaply cut it down, that's more water to distribute to customers.
My dad drove a cad for years and some had meters some dod not. Most of the cab companies used zones for charges.
Very good. Your dad worked in a different city with different rules, which I explicitly acknowledged.
Uber drivers are officially only 'hailable' through the application. Which, in many cases, isn't considered a 'street hail' like NYC regulations control.
Yes, it's very legalistic. But such is how NYC has it's regulations set up, and they're just an example.
But, let's not get sidetracked, the real question is that people are voting with their browsers and pushing ads off the table as a revenue stream, I always questioned how this industry worked in the first place, do 100,000 ad impressions actually net business? (Well, other than for the person who claims business will come your way with 100k ad impressions)
It's 'complicated'. From what I've seen of the early studies, people who, for example, see only Coke ads but no Pepsi ads will tend to buy Coke instead of Pepsi.
As the relative expense increases, advertising matters less once you've at least put your name out enough that you're on the 'to be checked out' list.
For example, let's say I'm a restaurant. In the old days, once I'm in the yellow pages, a spot here and there to remind people that I exist is sufficient to keep new customers coming in to replace old ones, assuming that I'm not in a 'hot enough' location to do it all on local traffic. BTW, 'Local Traffic' is the reason why restaurants often have 'unique' appearances.
However, it's important to remember that people only have so much money, and value their time. But so doesn't Coke and Pepsi want that revenue. So they end up in a game of one-upmanship for our viewings. After a while, they lose track of how much sales they're gaining/losing due to their advertising. Still, they generally try to make their ads interesting.
The problem is, with internet ads they can actually see effectiveness rates, and had deluded themselves that response rates should be high, so when they get 1 response out of 1k impressions, they think the advertising is less effective than with television and such. When in reality it's probably the same to better.
Another problem is that the more advertising we're exposed to, the less effective it is. As a result people today, especially Americans, are incredibly resistent to the effects of ads. We're like type-2 diabetics when it comes to insulin. So the ad companies ratchet things up again.
The truth is they overstepped their bounds by making the ads overt and invasive and that created a backlash.
To be fair, there was backlash even with television, it just wasn't as visible. You had a mix of people using the ad times as bathroom breaks, taping then fast forwarding through the ads, etc...
Also, there were 'numerous' attempts at legislation over the volume thing(where they'd turn up the effective volume of ads, often substantially, over the program content). Much like how when I switch the radio to NPR or the college radio station I have to give it a quarter notch up on volume as opposed to the commercial stations. And a preventive notch down when I go back to them.
That's ridiculous; I'm paying $50/month so why should they be subsidizing themselves with ridiculous randomized ads?
Keep in mind that there's malware out there that's essentially the *reverse* of ad-blocker: It inserts even MORE ads into content, and seeing them where there shouldn't be ads is generally a good clue. In some cases it'll even intercept the ads that are supposed to be supporting the site and putting it's own in. IE instead of a an ad from company X going to the website, you get an ad from company Y that goes towards the malware maker. In some cases company X & Y can actually be the same.
As such, I'd be careful about blaming your ISP until it's been tested with a browser known to be without said plug-ins.
Indeed, my response to their begging me to disable my ad-blocker for their site is that I DO have ad-blocks 'non-intrusive ad whitelist' enabled, they can serve me ads so long as they meet those standards.
Oh, they're not as 'effective'? They're more effective than ads that drive me to block them!
auto start video ads and popup ads that popup about on web pages 30 seconds after you start reading an article are my 2 least favorite ad types.
One recent experience. Open up a review site. Like 15 seconds in, it pops up a center ad: "Do you like this article? Recommend it on XYZ*!!!" Dude, I might read fast, but I haven't even seen a complete paragraph!
One site asked for me to review something. I gave it 1 star for the popup.
Hint: The multi-national company is also made up of millions of people(well, maybe not quite that many yet).
I'm free to compare whatever I want. Hell, you went just as low, because you compared them more so than I did, going by your metric. Or perhaps 'Equate' would be a better term, indicating that I somehow thought they were the same? But then, that would be a strawman, because I did specify that they are different, and made no statement of how I view their relative values. Just that Uber, and companies like it, might have a point, given how, like I said, I think that the USA has become to unfriendly to new businesses - specifically startups. I didn't say that the rights that MLK fought for weren't more important than what Uber's fighting for.
You're free to believe what you want to believe, but I suggest trying to see my point of view for a moment. Though it would be tough given these relatively small posts.
Slashdot Mirror
*On a side note, background checks for gun ownerships also "just make sense" and likewise the republicans should allow it to happen.
...I might of missed something, but NICS, IE 'National Instant background Check System' has been in place for quite a while, hasn't it?
On the other hand, you also run into the same problem with private transfers in states that have passed laws such that even those have to go through the NICS check - they authorize dealers to charge for it, and thus a private transfer averages around $45 for the check(note, the actual check is free to the dealer, and takes about 10-15 minutes for the paperwork).
Personally, I think they'd have a much better response if they came up with a way for the check to be free even to individuals. Perhaps have the state police do it or something.
even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of a year - and therefore have the legal right to vote,
Disclaimer: All of my college experience has been in-state, but I did have a full military career where my state of citizenship didn't match my state of residence. I am not a lawyer or an election official. Seek the professional advice of your local ones if you have further questions, or at least hit up the state's election website.
As such, no, being a full time student 9 months out of the year in a state, by itself, does NOT give you the right to vote in that state.
You have to declare your intent to be a citizen of the state in question. One of the signs for that is getting your license transferred over. By continuing to use your home state's DL, you're declaring your residency there temporary, which means you'd properly vote absentee in your home state.
It helps if you consider that the conservatives are more against 'poor people' and disproportionally targeting blacks is a matter of they're more likely to be poor.
Or, if you still want a racist answer, that they target poor people because blacks tend to be poor and they can't target them directly.
Personally, I think conservatives just hate poor people of any color, for the most part. They're mostly fine with rich and middle class black people.
But, this was after the officer said I "must have enemies" and that was why I was scared of some random car flashing lights at me, and that even in other states, I should have known that car had a police officer in it.
Just as a note, I've lived in 7 states. In NONE of them would I assume that a somebody flashing their high beams at me while following like police officers like to do is a cop or has good intentions.
You don't need the translations for the names, you need them for the ballot initiatives. School bonds and the like.
That's actually what I was thinking of when I said 'sections'.
I could figure out the "important" elections like president, governor, federal and state congressional elections even if they were in Spanish, for example, by name recognition. Japanese would be... tougher. ;)
Scantrons - eminently viable solution, thank you. Can be utilized completely without electricity if necessary, can be counted by both hand and by independent electronic machines, highly auditable.
Only problem is, as you say, somebody speaking a different language might need a special ballot(preferably in both english and the alternate), and a blind person would need assistance.
In the case of the different language, even that's not especially necessary - you can provide a handout with translations for the various sections, and that the names match up is 'good enough'. Obama is Obama, and McCain is McCain, for example.
I've always supported pen&paper voting, with e-machines, if used, only being used to produce a paper ballot.
If you have paper ballots, you can still recover from things like a power outage*, you can hand count the things if necessary, and if you declare the paper 'receipt' to be the official ballot, everything is countable and can be audited.
I've had some arguments with people about how electronic machines are more usable for those with disabilities, but see above - you can only do the best you can, and the security of the election should NOT be in question. Like it's going to be in Virginia until the last of those elected through the use of these machines are gone.
Does anybody know of any 'surprises' with results going against exit polls in the state?
*I know, low probability, but voting is serious business.
Don't forget "Don't happen to live on the route of a crooked UPS/USPS/Fedex driver" - fortunately only the dogs were killed in this one. But the raided Maryland Mayor is still rather pissed.
Storyline - package full of drugs found addressed to Mayor's house. They 'allowed it to be delivered*'. Mayor, seeing package addressed to wife on stoop, brings it inside and sticks it on the kitchen table for her. SWAT subsequently busts in and kills their dogs.
Turns out that it was the package delivery service driver that was crooked. They'd address packages for people along his route, mail them, but he'd intercept them before delivery.
Political shitstorm ensues as the Mayor actually knows how to make things painful for the department for raiding him and shooting his dogs. Even with this shitstorm, Sheriff refuses to apologize for raid, killing his dogs, illegal no-knock warrant, etc...
*Actually outside of normal shipping, an undercover officer placed it at the door.
I don't know anyone that says that.
You do now, at least one AC has said it. I've seen it on a number of other threads.
Of course, I'm not saying they're correct, but a lot of people also mix up self defense and punishment.
Still, when we've had unarmed people killed by officers for things like:
Mentally ill, deaf(shot in back for not stopping walking away), wearing headphones(couldn't hear officer), diabetic shock*/coma, following police directives(show me your wallet!), putting their hands down, threatening to kill themselves with a knife**, etc...
*Effectively a subclass of mentally ill, they aren't processing inputs correctly anymore due to low blood sugar
**woman called because boyfriend was threatening to kill himself with a knife, officers showed up and kicked her out, then pretty much immediately shot the man with their patrol rifles.
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
You know, this reminds me that there are police departments with, at any given time, a dozen or so improper use of force lawsuits against them, tens of millions in payouts a year, the department essentially treating said lawsuits like a cost of doing business(costs the city money, not them, not even their budget). Then there are neighboring cities/precincts that actually do their job correctly, DON'T kill a half a dozen or so people improperly every year, where ONE such lawsuit would be unusual.
We don't so much have a bad officer problem in the USA, we have a bad police department problem. The 10% worst departments are responsible for a lot more than 90% of our problems with police.
Responsible departments get rid of or reform 'bad egg' officers rather rapidly. Bad departments encourage them. See Sheriff Arpaio.
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
I think the major change for this would be ending the war on drugs. Seriously, it's the number one reason for officers to be sticking their noses into people's business, because it's the biggest category of 'consensual crime', where all parties involved are consenting, and thus unlikely to report that a crime is in progress to the police. Thus, in order to enforce said laws, they have to intrude on people's lives, into our privacy.
After that you have prostitution and gambling.
Get rid of consensual crime(at least most forms of it), and you'll see officers doing a lot more towards the peace than enforcement.
Add in the enormous number of 'legacy' police, that federal law enforcement is a tiny percentage of the total, and generally considered a higher status posting.
I can easily see it being that *most* police officers entering the force today have at least an associate's, but *most* police officers IN the force only have a high school diploma, perhaps with a non-degree police academy certificate.
That being said, you can have the same problem with police officers as you can with social workers. As odd as it may sound, by requiring a specific degree, they only get a specific sort of applicant, who's spent(in the case of the social worker) 4-6 years in what can amount to an echo chamber.
You can get graduates that take certain assumptions as gospel, and in either case, 'when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail'. They get stuck in a box when it comes to thinking about issues.
They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
Indeed. They've been caught, on video, tasering a non-responsive person in a diabetic coma for 'resisting', yelling all the while. Note, it's not just about 'resistance' today, it's about 'compliance'. IE you not only have to avoid resisting an officer, you have to be following their orders, sometimes beyond the best of your ability.
Another officer, female in this case, tasered a person into being a corpse, then shocked the corpse over a hundred times by the estimate of the coroner. When her training was examined, it was discovered that she had ZERO deescalation techniques, and no techniques OTHER than the taser to seek 'compliance'.
She was on video - "Put your hands behind your back" - Pause - SHOCK - "Put your hands behind your back".
Keep in mind that after about the third shock he wasn't resisting, he was non-responsive. He wasn't capable of complying.
I figure the taxi drivers see 'anything' as a threat and thus oppose it.
Still, looking at the graphic, they're turning a space that could be a 4 lane road into 2.
Still, more bicycles SHOULD equate to more taxi rides - more people ditch their cars for bicycles 'except' for xyz, which then logically leads to more cab rides.
Self driving cars should be what they're really worried about.
Why is London's mayor incorrectly referred to as an "its" in the first half of the sentence, but as "his" later on in the sentence?
Jamming two sentences together for length and insufficient editing explains it rather neatly.
Something like "London's mayor Boris Johnson is finally seeing his cycle superhighway becoming reality. The project had to fight its way through..."
Get a battery case for your phone!
In which case, which phone, other than apple's, has the best battery cases available? Is it possible to mod a phone to have separate external contact points so as to avoid increasing the height of the phone too much?
How about for a tablet?
Thoughts I had:
1. Balls might be more durable than cloth - if something lands on the balls, they simply shift out of the way, then back. The cloth might tear or be pulled to the bottom with whatever. Stand up to rain/hail better.
2. Cheaper - a 'floating shade cloth' might end up costing more per coverage, after all, it needs to be woven from thread and somehow made to float
3. Easier to place. As shown in the video, you can pretty much just dump the balls, with cloth you'd actually need to place it. The balls distribute themselves.
Other thoughts I've had from other posters:
Beware of the desire for 'perfect' solutions. You don't have to stop all evaporation, but if you can cheaply cut it down, that's more water to distribute to customers.
My dad drove a cad for years and some had meters some dod not. Most of the cab companies used zones for charges.
Very good. Your dad worked in a different city with different rules, which I explicitly acknowledged.
Uber drivers are officially only 'hailable' through the application. Which, in many cases, isn't considered a 'street hail' like NYC regulations control.
Yes, it's very legalistic. But such is how NYC has it's regulations set up, and they're just an example.
But, let's not get sidetracked, the real question is that people are voting with their browsers and pushing ads off the table as a revenue stream, I always questioned how this industry worked in the first place, do 100,000 ad impressions actually net business? (Well, other than for the person who claims business will come your way with 100k ad impressions)
It's 'complicated'. From what I've seen of the early studies, people who, for example, see only Coke ads but no Pepsi ads will tend to buy Coke instead of Pepsi.
As the relative expense increases, advertising matters less once you've at least put your name out enough that you're on the 'to be checked out' list.
For example, let's say I'm a restaurant. In the old days, once I'm in the yellow pages, a spot here and there to remind people that I exist is sufficient to keep new customers coming in to replace old ones, assuming that I'm not in a 'hot enough' location to do it all on local traffic. BTW, 'Local Traffic' is the reason why restaurants often have 'unique' appearances.
However, it's important to remember that people only have so much money, and value their time. But so doesn't Coke and Pepsi want that revenue. So they end up in a game of one-upmanship for our viewings. After a while, they lose track of how much sales they're gaining/losing due to their advertising. Still, they generally try to make their ads interesting.
The problem is, with internet ads they can actually see effectiveness rates, and had deluded themselves that response rates should be high, so when they get 1 response out of 1k impressions, they think the advertising is less effective than with television and such. When in reality it's probably the same to better.
Another problem is that the more advertising we're exposed to, the less effective it is. As a result people today, especially Americans, are incredibly resistent to the effects of ads. We're like type-2 diabetics when it comes to insulin. So the ad companies ratchet things up again.
The truth is they overstepped their bounds by making the ads overt and invasive and that created a backlash.
To be fair, there was backlash even with television, it just wasn't as visible. You had a mix of people using the ad times as bathroom breaks, taping then fast forwarding through the ads, etc...
Also, there were 'numerous' attempts at legislation over the volume thing(where they'd turn up the effective volume of ads, often substantially, over the program content). Much like how when I switch the radio to NPR or the college radio station I have to give it a quarter notch up on volume as opposed to the commercial stations. And a preventive notch down when I go back to them.
That's ridiculous; I'm paying $50/month so why should they be subsidizing themselves with ridiculous randomized ads?
Keep in mind that there's malware out there that's essentially the *reverse* of ad-blocker: It inserts even MORE ads into content, and seeing them where there shouldn't be ads is generally a good clue. In some cases it'll even intercept the ads that are supposed to be supporting the site and putting it's own in. IE instead of a an ad from company X going to the website, you get an ad from company Y that goes towards the malware maker. In some cases company X & Y can actually be the same.
As such, I'd be careful about blaming your ISP until it's been tested with a browser known to be without said plug-ins.
Indeed, my response to their begging me to disable my ad-blocker for their site is that I DO have ad-blocks 'non-intrusive ad whitelist' enabled, they can serve me ads so long as they meet those standards.
Oh, they're not as 'effective'? They're more effective than ads that drive me to block them!
auto start video ads and popup ads that popup about on web pages 30 seconds after you start reading an article are my 2 least favorite ad types.
One recent experience. Open up a review site. Like 15 seconds in, it pops up a center ad: "Do you like this article? Recommend it on XYZ*!!!" Dude, I might read fast, but I haven't even seen a complete paragraph!
One site asked for me to review something. I gave it 1 star for the popup.
*Facebook/twitter/yadayadayada
Wow, that is really low.
So rather than attack the concept you attack me?
Hint: The multi-national company is also made up of millions of people(well, maybe not quite that many yet).
I'm free to compare whatever I want. Hell, you went just as low, because you compared them more so than I did, going by your metric. Or perhaps 'Equate' would be a better term, indicating that I somehow thought they were the same? But then, that would be a strawman, because I did specify that they are different, and made no statement of how I view their relative values. Just that Uber, and companies like it, might have a point, given how, like I said, I think that the USA has become to unfriendly to new businesses - specifically startups. I didn't say that the rights that MLK fought for weren't more important than what Uber's fighting for.
You're free to believe what you want to believe, but I suggest trying to see my point of view for a moment. Though it would be tough given these relatively small posts.
It's true, in that they are made up of people. It's just people working together for a common cause, in this case, profit.
Thank you. Yes, when I said 'Uber' I meant it as shorthand for the people that make up Uber, from the CEO down to the contracted drivers.
I love it when somebody expresses something better than I could.