I'm not happy about the result but I'm going to make 2 predictions right now:
* The wall never gets built, I can't see congress aggreeing to fund it
* Trump comes around on climate change. I think he's smart enough to know that it's a real thing and he has young kids to think of.
Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.
Well, I think you're a half right kind of guy:-)
Specifically, I don't think the wall will ever get built. It's stupid, pointless, Congress won't agree to it, and there's no way in hell Mexico will pay for it. But I don't think Trump is smart enough to come around on climate change OR that he's selfless enough to care if he does -- or man enough to take the heat that would come with actually trying to do something about it.
This whole "wall" thing confuses me. Isn't there a wall between the two countries for most of the distance already? Or at least a fence; but I really can't imagine his supporters making that distinction or his detractors pushing too hard for an actual wall.
There are fences of various types across some portions. IIRC, about 650 miles of the ~2000 mile border with Mexico.
I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to face Reagan. I guess you need to be careful what you wish for.
Oh how I wish Trump were a Reagan. Not that I think Reagan's policies were all great, but he did do an excellent job of being presidential -- and that is important. It brings people together and gives them confidence in their leader and themselves. Trump... is less qualified than Reagan was at doing the day-in, day-out job of governing, and being presidential is completely beyond him.
I fully expect him to appoint every conservative wingnut he can find to positions of power.
Why would you expect that? That would imply that he'd appoint people with different beliefs than his own. Donald Trump is not, has never been, and didn't campaign as, a conservative.
We're going to try trickle down economics one more fucking time.
If you believe his victory speech, we're going back to the New Deal. The very first thing he said was that he's going to put millions to work rebuilding national infrastructure. Will he call it the CCC again, too?
We're going to boot 20 million people off of their health care, and institute health savings plans instead (great if you live well enough above your means that you can afford to set money aside).
Could be.
We're going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords. The EPA will be left in tatters.
You're right about that one.
We're going to waste half a trillion dollars building a fucking wall, to address an immigration problem that is nowhere near our top concern.
I doubt it. I expect him to start walking that one back on day one... or at least mutating it into a "virtual' wall. Which, actually, would be more effective.
We're going to defund the Department of Education.
Meh. That seems like something that ought to be a state-level concern anyway.
And I fully expect the Trump administration to be rife with scandals. There's a reason he didn't want to get into financial disclosures. He will use the office to further his investments.
President Trump, the greatest shitshow on earth!
Yeah, starting with the fact that the Trump University lawsuit is going to be in high gear as he begins his presidency. Or we could have had Clinton being prosecuted for mishandling classified emails. Swindling people out of their savings or scheming to keep emails hidden from potential subpoenas and FOIA requests... which is worse? The latter is despicable and morally bankrupt (though not treasonous, no matter what conservative blowhards say), but the former is just petty nasty thieving. And being elected president clearly isn't going to convince him that now he has to start playing by the rules (nor would it convince her).
Sigh. Faced with two thoroughly rotten options, America picked the greater evil.
Asking for a better approach is usually the last refuge of people who can't prove themselves right.
Dude, I wasn't out to prove anything. I asked a question... and it's quite a reasonable one, in my opinion. I'm not saying that you must be able to come up with a better definition in order to argue against the one they used, but thought perhaps you had something in mind. A simple "No, I don't know a better definition, but I think this one is misleading for the reasons I gave, and I think it's possible that someone could find a better approach to evaluate the question" would have been reasonable.
I maintain that giving less-credible positions similar weight to credible positions is not balance.
True, certainly, but while in some areas determining credibility is relatively straightforward, in other areas it's really hard. Trying to evaluate credibility would open the study up to seriously hard-to-prevent researcher bias. With respect to political topics it seems quite reasonable to just ensure that all widely-held opinions are presented, along with the objective measurements available (if any). Where one position lacks objective measurements, that should be stated.
would not be balanced to write an article on homosexual adoption that gave equal weight to both the rights of homosexual couples and the ethics of leaving children with a group of people known to be mostly child-predators.
That could be done quite easily. The article would just have to make clear that each is the position of one group of people, and in both cases citing any available evidence for or against each position, as given by the two groups. In your particular example there would be no significant evidence of child predation among homosexuals, and significant evidence that the children adopted by homosexuals grow up to be about as stable (or messed up) as those adopted by heterosexuals.
On the hottest topics it would be a non-issue since the dispute is fundamentally about values. For example there are no real facts in dispute about abortion rights, which is exactly why the topic has been so charged for so long and always will be unless opinions on the priorities of the relevant values converge.
My point is more that "balanced" is hard to measure and that their definition has procedural flaws.
Can you suggest a better one? Their definition aligns with what I intuitively expected from the word "balanced". Your point seems to imply that there is a different definition that people who didn't read the details would assume, and I'm not sure what that might be. I suppose some people might read "balanced" as "accurate", which would clearly be fallacious, but people who interpret what they read so loosely are going to get it wrong in any case.
How do you have precincts that don't have adequate oversight?
Precincts which very heavily favor one party and have little organized resistance. Granted that in such precincts the vote will be overwhelmingly for the local party, but that doesn't mean the opposing votes shouldn't all get counted.
Regardless of that, though, there's huge value in a system that allows people to verify that their vote was counted correctly.
You want to prevent all hacking? Just use paper ballots counted at the precinct level. India has a billion people and it works just fine. Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.
That's an okay solution -- though somewhat vulnerable to fraud conducted by the vote counters in precincts that don't get adequate oversight -- but we have the technology to do better. For the last couple of decades academic cryptographers have been trying to solve the problem of how to ensure fair elections, and they've come up with some remarkable techniques that allow elections to be strongly verified, making any tampering obvious. And they've refined their techniques to make them quite practical as well.
Check out Scantegrity. Note that it does use paper ballots. Counting can be done at the precinct level or at any higher level; doesn't matter. If the vote isn't tabulated correctly, the error will be exposed. Individual voters can also verify that their vote was counted correctly -- but without being able to prove how they voted. It's an excellent design.
Nope. The Democrats used to be the party of the racists, which is why they controlled the deep south. Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.
So, nothing strange at all. The racists gerrymandered districts on a racial basis, regardless of which party they claimed to be in.
Note that I'm not saying the Democratic party used to be racist, or that the Republican party is now. One particular (and large) voting bloc in the south is overtly racist, and that bloc embraced one party and then the other. Neither party rejected the power the racist bloc gave them.
if you don't think a MAC address can't be linked to a specific model and the credit card used to buy it, think again
MAC addresses are visible only to the router you're connected to. They're not used by the IP protocol, but only by the underlying transport protocol, which is used only for the first hop. So, no, MAC addresses can't be used to identify you unless (a) the entity trying to spy on you is on the local network you're connected to, (b) some application-level protocol you use decides to send your MAC address, or (c) you're using IPv6 and your network stack decides to use your MAC address as the lower 48 bits of your IP address (which very early IPv6 stacks did, until it was pointed out that it's very bad for privacy).
The great thing about calling something "common sense" is that it can be applied to absolutely anything. It doesn't have to correct, it just has to be a common belief and be able to survive a very shallow logical analysis. And, actually, it doesn't even have to all that common... you can also use it to describe something you'd like to portray as a common belief in the hope that it will become one.
Common sense is neither common, nor sense. We should ignore it and instead focus on reasoned sense, based on solid data. And from that perspective there is absolutely zero evidence that voter ID is necessary... or even useful.
if you're incapable of obtaining identification which most people have (state ID, drivers license, etc.)
No one is saying people are incapable of obtaining identification, but there is a large minority of people who don't need identification in their daily lives, and therefore don't have it. Requiring them to obtain it solely for the purpose of voting places a large obstacle in front of them... especially if the government also "consolidates" DMV offices, closing the ones within easy reach of the people who don't have identification, which was also done in NC. Even without that step, it's a great way to discourage people from voting, to add one more (rather large) obstacle. How many people who have ID don't vote because they're too busy to make it to the polling place? Now tell them they have to first spend half of a day sitting in a DMV office several weeks beforehand. Oh, and that's half a day during working hours; so they have to take time off -- and the class in question does not get paid time off, so it's also expensive.
The effect is not only predictable, it's measurable, and has been measured. There are many studies, actually, that article discusses only one of them.
then perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with a vote.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that, much less saying it. If you're going to do that, why not limit the vote to male landowners, or have income level requirements, or IQ tests?
The government should represent all of the people it governs, not just the ones you think are "worthy". I'll grant that there are other big problems with our achievement of that ideal, but that's no reason to add more.
The GPL has no clause that says the requirement to distribute source doesn't kick in until someone asks for the source code.
Yes, it does. Specifically, one of the options for source distribution is:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code
So if they offer to provide source to anyone who requests it, they're in compliance. They can even charge a fee, and they only have to provide source for three years -- that's probably three years from the last time they sell a device, I think. It's not clear to me that Nintendo has made such an offer, though.
Yes, HTTPS is fine for anything sensitive, but does my recipe site really need to provide HTTPS pages?
That depends, is every user's browser perfectly secure? (Hint: the answer is no)
HTTPS provides three guarantees that HTTP does not.
1. Secrecy. This is the one that you focused on; keeping the contents of the traffic between your recipe server and its clients secure against eavesdroppers. You're probably right that it doesn't matter.
2. Authentication. HTTPS verifies to the client that it is talking to the server it thinks it is, rather than some other, possibly malicious, server.
3. Integrity. HTTPS that the contents of the traffic between your reciper server and its clients is secure against modification.
Both 2 and 3 are important individually, and together they provide an assurance that your clients are getting your content and nothing else. Not only does this mean the recipes won't be modified, but it means the recipe documents cannot be modified so they exploit browser vulnerabilities to hijack the user's browser, or possibly the user's entire computer.
Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that your recipe server is malicious, either because you are or because someone else has taken control of it. Those possibilities are addressed by Safe Browsing infrastructure that attempts to identify and warn users away from malicious sites. But that only works if the browser actually knows what site it's talking to, so HTTPS is an essential enabling technology for Safe Browsing.
1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?
Much of the tech industry leadership leans Democratic, mostly because they grew up in northern California.
2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?
No, like any good Democrat he wants *other people* to pay above minimum wage:-)
Yes, Uber could; however, doing so right now will reduce their revenue. Remember that Uber is taking a portion of the service charged to the clients (passengers)? If they follow what you are explaining, even though they could avoid the employer-employee relationship, it could hit their revenue quite hard. Business people (or corporations) do not like to lose their earning and will try to drag it out as long as they can...
Nothing in my suggestion would change that aspect of the model. Uber would still take a portion of the final price, whatever it might be.
You think someone that "should have been indicted" is the best choice?
Better than the other option on offer. And, yes, there really is only one other option on offer. Your vote for Stein does send a message, and that's a reasonable thing to do, but the only way it will affect this election is by removing one vote from whichever of the major party candidates you'd have voted for if there were no third parties. If the major party candidate you'd have voted for is going to win your state's electoral votes anyway, then your protest vote is a good one. If your vote might tip your state's electoral college votes away from the major party candidate you find less evil, then you've done yourself a disservice.
Personally, I expect I'll vote for McMullin. My goal is "anyone but Trump", and my state (Utah) will clearly deliver its electoral votes to either McMullin or Trump. Clinton's support in the state is so low that if McMullin & Trump split the rest down the middle Clinton would be in third place, so voting for her won't hurt Trump. Johnson had some support but it has nearly all defected to McMullin, since Johnson's voters weren't voting for him, they were voting against Clinton and Trump. The same is true of most of McMullin's supporters, but he actually has to potentially win the state. And if that happens, and if Trump & Clinton split the remainder of the electoral votes, it's even remotely possible that he could become president (probably with Tim Kaine as VP), unlike Jill Stein who may have more votes nationally but doesn't have enough in any one state to win electoral college votes, and therefore has no chance at the White House.
McMullin is (a) not Trump and (b) not Clinton, (c) not insane and (d) has a non-zero (though very small) chance of winning. Given that, plus the fact that voting for him is my only option for reducing Trump's odds of winning means that he's my clear choice. The only thing that would change my mind is a late surge by Clinton that made her viable in the state. The odds of that are even lower than McMullin seated behind the Resolute desk, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The end of NATO. That's pretty bad.
Yeah. That's really, really bad, and Trump does seem willing to do it.
I'm not happy about the result but I'm going to make 2 predictions right now:
* The wall never gets built, I can't see congress aggreeing to fund it
* Trump comes around on climate change. I think he's smart enough to know that it's a real thing and he has young kids to think of.
Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.
Well, I think you're a half right kind of guy :-)
Specifically, I don't think the wall will ever get built. It's stupid, pointless, Congress won't agree to it, and there's no way in hell Mexico will pay for it. But I don't think Trump is smart enough to come around on climate change OR that he's selfless enough to care if he does -- or man enough to take the heat that would come with actually trying to do something about it.
This whole "wall" thing confuses me. Isn't there a wall between the two countries for most of the distance already? Or at least a fence; but I really can't imagine his supporters making that distinction or his detractors pushing too hard for an actual wall.
There are fences of various types across some portions. IIRC, about 650 miles of the ~2000 mile border with Mexico.
I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to face Reagan. I guess you need to be careful what you wish for.
Oh how I wish Trump were a Reagan. Not that I think Reagan's policies were all great, but he did do an excellent job of being presidential -- and that is important. It brings people together and gives them confidence in their leader and themselves. Trump... is less qualified than Reagan was at doing the day-in, day-out job of governing, and being presidential is completely beyond him.
The best summary I've seen was in a tweet (sorry, don't have the link):
BRITAIN: Brexit is the stupidest, most self-destructive act a country could undertake.
USA: Hold my beer.
I fully expect him to appoint every conservative wingnut he can find to positions of power.
Why would you expect that? That would imply that he'd appoint people with different beliefs than his own. Donald Trump is not, has never been, and didn't campaign as, a conservative.
We're going to try trickle down economics one more fucking time.
If you believe his victory speech, we're going back to the New Deal. The very first thing he said was that he's going to put millions to work rebuilding national infrastructure. Will he call it the CCC again, too?
We're going to boot 20 million people off of their health care, and institute health savings plans instead (great if you live well enough above your means that you can afford to set money aside).
Could be.
We're going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords. The EPA will be left in tatters.
You're right about that one.
We're going to waste half a trillion dollars building a fucking wall, to address an immigration problem that is nowhere near our top concern.
I doubt it. I expect him to start walking that one back on day one... or at least mutating it into a "virtual' wall. Which, actually, would be more effective.
We're going to defund the Department of Education.
Meh. That seems like something that ought to be a state-level concern anyway.
And I fully expect the Trump administration to be rife with scandals. There's a reason he didn't want to get into financial disclosures. He will use the office to further his investments. President Trump, the greatest shitshow on earth!
Yeah, starting with the fact that the Trump University lawsuit is going to be in high gear as he begins his presidency. Or we could have had Clinton being prosecuted for mishandling classified emails. Swindling people out of their savings or scheming to keep emails hidden from potential subpoenas and FOIA requests... which is worse? The latter is despicable and morally bankrupt (though not treasonous, no matter what conservative blowhards say), but the former is just petty nasty thieving. And being elected president clearly isn't going to convince him that now he has to start playing by the rules (nor would it convince her).
Sigh. Faced with two thoroughly rotten options, America picked the greater evil.
"The racists stuck with the Democrats"
This is _delusional_.
Totally.
Asking for a better approach is usually the last refuge of people who can't prove themselves right.
Dude, I wasn't out to prove anything. I asked a question... and it's quite a reasonable one, in my opinion. I'm not saying that you must be able to come up with a better definition in order to argue against the one they used, but thought perhaps you had something in mind. A simple "No, I don't know a better definition, but I think this one is misleading for the reasons I gave, and I think it's possible that someone could find a better approach to evaluate the question" would have been reasonable.
I maintain that giving less-credible positions similar weight to credible positions is not balance.
True, certainly, but while in some areas determining credibility is relatively straightforward, in other areas it's really hard. Trying to evaluate credibility would open the study up to seriously hard-to-prevent researcher bias. With respect to political topics it seems quite reasonable to just ensure that all widely-held opinions are presented, along with the objective measurements available (if any). Where one position lacks objective measurements, that should be stated.
would not be balanced to write an article on homosexual adoption that gave equal weight to both the rights of homosexual couples and the ethics of leaving children with a group of people known to be mostly child-predators.
That could be done quite easily. The article would just have to make clear that each is the position of one group of people, and in both cases citing any available evidence for or against each position, as given by the two groups. In your particular example there would be no significant evidence of child predation among homosexuals, and significant evidence that the children adopted by homosexuals grow up to be about as stable (or messed up) as those adopted by heterosexuals.
On the hottest topics it would be a non-issue since the dispute is fundamentally about values. For example there are no real facts in dispute about abortion rights, which is exactly why the topic has been so charged for so long and always will be unless opinions on the priorities of the relevant values converge.
"Not properly sourced." But you provided all the links to sources.
"No original research." But it's not my own research. Look at the sources I provided.
"Not noteworthy." What? This is a hugely significant!
Page has been locked, your IP has been banned from editing.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please click on Jimmy Wales's ugly face to donate.
Cite? C'mon, should be easy; it's all there in the history of the article and the talk page.
Of course, you won't respond to this. People who make these sorts of claims never do, strangely enough. I wonder why that would be...
My point is more that "balanced" is hard to measure and that their definition has procedural flaws.
Can you suggest a better one? Their definition aligns with what I intuitively expected from the word "balanced". Your point seems to imply that there is a different definition that people who didn't read the details would assume, and I'm not sure what that might be. I suppose some people might read "balanced" as "accurate", which would clearly be fallacious, but people who interpret what they read so loosely are going to get it wrong in any case.
I'm not convinced. But in any case it really doesn't matter. Whatever the cause of the swap, the racist South did flip from D to R.
How do you have precincts that don't have adequate oversight?
Precincts which very heavily favor one party and have little organized resistance. Granted that in such precincts the vote will be overwhelmingly for the local party, but that doesn't mean the opposing votes shouldn't all get counted.
Regardless of that, though, there's huge value in a system that allows people to verify that their vote was counted correctly.
You want to prevent all hacking? Just use paper ballots counted at the precinct level. India has a billion people and it works just fine. Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.
That's an okay solution -- though somewhat vulnerable to fraud conducted by the vote counters in precincts that don't get adequate oversight -- but we have the technology to do better. For the last couple of decades academic cryptographers have been trying to solve the problem of how to ensure fair elections, and they've come up with some remarkable techniques that allow elections to be strongly verified, making any tampering obvious. And they've refined their techniques to make them quite practical as well.
Check out Scantegrity. Note that it does use paper ballots. Counting can be done at the precinct level or at any higher level; doesn't matter. If the vote isn't tabulated correctly, the error will be exposed. Individual voters can also verify that their vote was counted correctly -- but without being able to prove how they voted. It's an excellent design.
See anything strange there?
Nope. The Democrats used to be the party of the racists, which is why they controlled the deep south. Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.
So, nothing strange at all. The racists gerrymandered districts on a racial basis, regardless of which party they claimed to be in.
Note that I'm not saying the Democratic party used to be racist, or that the Republican party is now. One particular (and large) voting bloc in the south is overtly racist, and that bloc embraced one party and then the other. Neither party rejected the power the racist bloc gave them.
if you don't think a MAC address can't be linked to a specific model and the credit card used to buy it, think again
MAC addresses are visible only to the router you're connected to. They're not used by the IP protocol, but only by the underlying transport protocol, which is used only for the first hop. So, no, MAC addresses can't be used to identify you unless (a) the entity trying to spy on you is on the local network you're connected to, (b) some application-level protocol you use decides to send your MAC address, or (c) you're using IPv6 and your network stack decides to use your MAC address as the lower 48 bits of your IP address (which very early IPv6 stacks did, until it was pointed out that it's very bad for privacy).
Voter ID is one of those common sense things
The great thing about calling something "common sense" is that it can be applied to absolutely anything. It doesn't have to correct, it just has to be a common belief and be able to survive a very shallow logical analysis. And, actually, it doesn't even have to all that common... you can also use it to describe something you'd like to portray as a common belief in the hope that it will become one.
Common sense is neither common, nor sense. We should ignore it and instead focus on reasoned sense, based on solid data. And from that perspective there is absolutely zero evidence that voter ID is necessary... or even useful.
if you're incapable of obtaining identification which most people have (state ID, drivers license, etc.)
Mu.
No one is saying people are incapable of obtaining identification, but there is a large minority of people who don't need identification in their daily lives, and therefore don't have it. Requiring them to obtain it solely for the purpose of voting places a large obstacle in front of them... especially if the government also "consolidates" DMV offices, closing the ones within easy reach of the people who don't have identification, which was also done in NC. Even without that step, it's a great way to discourage people from voting, to add one more (rather large) obstacle. How many people who have ID don't vote because they're too busy to make it to the polling place? Now tell them they have to first spend half of a day sitting in a DMV office several weeks beforehand. Oh, and that's half a day during working hours; so they have to take time off -- and the class in question does not get paid time off, so it's also expensive.
The effect is not only predictable, it's measurable, and has been measured. There are many studies, actually, that article discusses only one of them.
then perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with a vote.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that, much less saying it. If you're going to do that, why not limit the vote to male landowners, or have income level requirements, or IQ tests?
The government should represent all of the people it governs, not just the ones you think are "worthy". I'll grant that there are other big problems with our achievement of that ideal, but that's no reason to add more.
And the public should be able to examine the change logs to see whose office put in what to each bill.
Yes, we need LawHub. https://github.com/divegeek/us... (note that I stopped updating that repo years ago so the content is quite stale).
The GPL has no clause that says the requirement to distribute source doesn't kick in until someone asks for the source code.
Yes, it does. Specifically, one of the options for source distribution is:
So if they offer to provide source to anyone who requests it, they're in compliance. They can even charge a fee, and they only have to provide source for three years -- that's probably three years from the last time they sell a device, I think. It's not clear to me that Nintendo has made such an offer, though.
... it's a racket for SSL authorities who charge for their certs. Unless you want to install onerous ACME software on your server. Suckage.
https://letsencrypt.org/
How do they know what websites I visit and what percentage of them are using HTTPS?
Unless you opted in to allowing Chrome to send usage statistics, they don't.
Yes, HTTPS is fine for anything sensitive, but does my recipe site really need to provide HTTPS pages?
That depends, is every user's browser perfectly secure? (Hint: the answer is no)
HTTPS provides three guarantees that HTTP does not.
1. Secrecy. This is the one that you focused on; keeping the contents of the traffic between your recipe server and its clients secure against eavesdroppers. You're probably right that it doesn't matter.
2. Authentication. HTTPS verifies to the client that it is talking to the server it thinks it is, rather than some other, possibly malicious, server.
3. Integrity. HTTPS that the contents of the traffic between your reciper server and its clients is secure against modification.
Both 2 and 3 are important individually, and together they provide an assurance that your clients are getting your content and nothing else. Not only does this mean the recipes won't be modified, but it means the recipe documents cannot be modified so they exploit browser vulnerabilities to hijack the user's browser, or possibly the user's entire computer.
Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that your recipe server is malicious, either because you are or because someone else has taken control of it. Those possibilities are addressed by Safe Browsing infrastructure that attempts to identify and warn users away from malicious sites. But that only works if the browser actually knows what site it's talking to, so HTTPS is an essential enabling technology for Safe Browsing.
A couple of observations:
1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?
Much of the tech industry leadership leans Democratic, mostly because they grew up in northern California.
2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?
No, like any good Democrat he wants *other people* to pay above minimum wage :-)
Yes, Uber could; however, doing so right now will reduce their revenue. Remember that Uber is taking a portion of the service charged to the clients (passengers)? If they follow what you are explaining, even though they could avoid the employer-employee relationship, it could hit their revenue quite hard. Business people (or corporations) do not like to lose their earning and will try to drag it out as long as they can...
Nothing in my suggestion would change that aspect of the model. Uber would still take a portion of the final price, whatever it might be.
You think someone that "should have been indicted" is the best choice?
Better than the other option on offer. And, yes, there really is only one other option on offer. Your vote for Stein does send a message, and that's a reasonable thing to do, but the only way it will affect this election is by removing one vote from whichever of the major party candidates you'd have voted for if there were no third parties. If the major party candidate you'd have voted for is going to win your state's electoral votes anyway, then your protest vote is a good one. If your vote might tip your state's electoral college votes away from the major party candidate you find less evil, then you've done yourself a disservice.
Personally, I expect I'll vote for McMullin. My goal is "anyone but Trump", and my state (Utah) will clearly deliver its electoral votes to either McMullin or Trump. Clinton's support in the state is so low that if McMullin & Trump split the rest down the middle Clinton would be in third place, so voting for her won't hurt Trump. Johnson had some support but it has nearly all defected to McMullin, since Johnson's voters weren't voting for him, they were voting against Clinton and Trump. The same is true of most of McMullin's supporters, but he actually has to potentially win the state. And if that happens, and if Trump & Clinton split the remainder of the electoral votes, it's even remotely possible that he could become president (probably with Tim Kaine as VP), unlike Jill Stein who may have more votes nationally but doesn't have enough in any one state to win electoral college votes, and therefore has no chance at the White House.
McMullin is (a) not Trump and (b) not Clinton, (c) not insane and (d) has a non-zero (though very small) chance of winning. Given that, plus the fact that voting for him is my only option for reducing Trump's odds of winning means that he's my clear choice. The only thing that would change my mind is a late surge by Clinton that made her viable in the state. The odds of that are even lower than McMullin seated behind the Resolute desk, though.
Uber is a parasite sucking blood from customers and the surroundings, it has no principles, no dogma, and you're just the convenient food.
Compared to paying twice as much money to ride in a dirty taxi? Here's my arm, suck away.
Any number of Uber drivers I've spoken with feel the same way about driving an Uber vs a taxi, too.
What kind of parasite makes all of its "victims" better off? That sounds like a symbiote, not a parasite.