The point at which market forces begin to correct for congestion is well after the point of gridlock.
Wha?..
It doesn't cost much for the taxi to sit in traffic, especially if they have a fare.
Huh? It costs two (or more) human's their time — the most precious resource we have in life... But you must've meant something else here — just what, I do not know...
Medallions have been one solution to this. Since I'm sure you have a good handle on the drawbacks of those, perhaps you can give me your thoughts on an alternative solution.
Uber. And Lyft. And the like... They solve the problem of personal transportation for hire. They solve it cheaper than the old solution. The solve it better. The only people clinging to the old way are the rent-seeking governments — upset over the loss of revenues they were getting from the sales of medallions, and the poor taxi-drivers suckered into purchasing those.
Medallions are static and dumb — possessing one says: "Some time ago I and my vehicle were inspected by the city and found decent enough for you to hire me." Computers and ubiquitous personal smart phones obsoleted them like automobile obsoleted horse-driven carriages 100 years ago.
both France and Germany continue to reject the company's validity in their regions
This is such a great news for all the little Statists out there: a multi-billion corporation (spit!) loses to the government officials seeking to retain control of transportation — as well as the massive fees collected from and the influence over those already "in" the system.
Meanwhile, a Boston Uber driver filed a federal lawsuit
illegally classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing full employee benefits
That a distinction even exists — allowing the enforcers from the Executive branch to make life hell for business-owners without even bothering with the Judiciary — is itself a major achievement for the Statism.
There is that... Shortly after Uber hired David Plouffe (the guy instrumental to putting Obama into office), I started getting spam from the company. E-mails asking me, whether I know, how "Uber helps minority drivers" or "how Uber helps the environment". That really was as sleazy a Democratic campaigns get, but the above-mentioned Statists usually lap this sort of thing up — even if the spam campaign misfired in my case and I know begin searching for a ride with Lyft.
Well, when Sarah Palin's private e-mail was hacked, reports weren't referring to her as just a mother and grand-mother — the capacity in which she used it and, incidentally, achievements far more serious than being an awareness raiser. No, the reports were referring to her as the Governor of Alaska and a VP-contender.
The story is about the twitter account.
The story is, indeed. And yet, if they describe him, they should've listed things that make hum especially (in)famous. And, maybe, they did — must be real sad, when one's fame is based not on what one has achieved, but what was done to the person by others...
vi does not come with Windows. And Unix is just too easy for a real man.
Then, again, if the guy really wanted to show off, he'd have referred to MS-DOS or something. I'd be interested in reading his blog on running a Web-site on an OS, which could only maintain a single TCP-connection at a time (making even FTP very difficult). Ah, the bad old days...
Is this — his being a "Racial Justice Activist" — the best way to describe a person? The supposed profession seems straight out of the Onion's polls — along with other gems like "Grammar Innovator" and "Cactus Purchaser".
Seriously, has he done something more profound in his life than raising awareness and, if he did, why is not that mentioned in the write-up instead?
Well, at least now I have heard of the guy — the hack and/. have achieved for him, what his "activity" itself was never able to...
Ah, yes, sure. After Pascal and Lisp, then C++, then Java, then Ruby — all promising "a revolution" — we are due for another. The revolution to end all revolutions, perhaps?
Meanwhile, I spill my heart out admitting to having started with FORTRAN, and get downmodded to zilch by the snobs... Sigh.
How can anyone reasonably equate running a business with deciding who to marry?
I'm not equating them. But I do not see an argument, which can justify banning racial discrimination in business, that can not also be applied to banning racial discrimination in choosing friends and suitors.
Can you cite one?
having to wade through the rest of your drivel
If you needed an excuse, I would've accepted a note from your parents...
Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.
And, should some other gav-gavker find our sex-life worthy of publication, it would be easier for us to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. The world really did become a (slightly) better place thanks to this case.
And they're not; they just can't refuse service for specific reasons.
Why? Should a girl be required to explain to government, why she spurned two Black would-be suitors, but accepted the affections of an Asian?
The government must not be allowed to discriminate between citizens. Private parties should be free to do and be whatever they wish — including being bigots.
If you can't find something he's doing wrong, you have no legitimate reason to not serve him.
Sure. That's the rationale. My point is, it is still a violation of my freedom. I should not have to even have a reason — much less have one somebody else finds satisfactory.
The idea was sold to us 50 years ago on the promise of racial harmony. It failed to deliver that — as do most things, for which the price is liberty. It not only did not bring about racial harmony, it gave the government a heavy club to use against businesses and corporations. How about you just give us your customers' data, and we would not have to look into why your workforce is so disproportionally White?
The natural next step of that decades-old failed proposal you keep believing in is ensuring people do not reject not just customers, but would-be friends and partners for the "wrong" reasons. Are you prepared to defend this too?
No, actually, you can not — the laws allowing the forfeiture do not require police to prove anything. For example:
Air Force veteran had $63,530 seized after he was pulled over for changing lanes without signaling. After a drug sniffing canine “alerted” to possible narcotics, a sheriff’s deputy conducted a search and found the cash, but no drugs.
Brewer told the officer he was on his way to Los Angeles where he intended to make a down payment on a house, but the deputy seized the money anyway. Brewer took his fight to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that circumstantial evidence, like the fact the money was being carried in a plastic bag near two magazines with marijuana-themed articles, was sufficient to tie the money to criminal activity. Brewer never saw his $63,530 again.
See? If the officer's suspicion was reasonable, the forfeiture will stand, even if no actual crime has ever been proven... This is far worse than a bogus warrant, because it allows literal robbery of completely innocent people, whereas with a warrant — justified or not — police still have to find evidence of a crime.
In fact, Republicans stand for the status-quo. i.e., standing for big oil, big gas, big electricity or big (insert your favorite lobbying group here).
Is that why a Republican President (along with Republican-dominated Congress) allowed the fuck-ups like Enron, MCI, and Lehman Brothers to collapse, while a Democratic one bailed out GM, Chrysler (not the first one), and AIG?
The SJW's who say "A private company isn't obligated to respect your civil rights" whenever some social site censors "hate speech" see no irony at all in the fact that this is the exact same argument that restaurants and landlords used in the 1960's to exclude minorities.
Whether SJWs see the irony or not, both groups were/are correct:
Private company is not (legally) obligated to protect your (well, yours it is, but not that of other people) freedom of speech
Business owners should not be forced into providing business to anyone. We surrendered an important freedom back in the 1960s in exchange for temporary (feeling of) fairness — and still do not have either.
I know Americans can never contemplate the idea that anybody may have freedom who isn't American let alone have MORE freedom
A few places are comparably free, but the vast majority of the world's population, regretfully, continues to live under regimes considerably more oppressive than the US. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects — like China or Russia — generally respectable places like India can be quite intolerant of unpopular opinions and authoritarian in controlling the information networks. It may seem crazy to Americans, but Germans and Brits, for another example, routinely get arrested simply for saying the wrong things on social media — in the US attempts to criminalize "hate speech" are still duly resisted.
Not to mention certain sunny locales, where one's had can be removed for apostasy.
Reducing America's control over the Internet will — inevitably and by definition — increase the share of control by these governments.
We've seen this before — UN's "Human Rights Council" is a good example of it. All of the things about it, that the so called "Liberals", dismiss as "myths", are actually quite true. It will happen to the Internet's governance — inasmuch as it needs any — as well.
The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest. It still is not created by the police — but by the lawmakers.
This is nothing new, unfortunately, and people — myself included — have been complaining about it for years and decades. Unfortunately, ACLU et al. prefer to concentrate on the bogus "racism" claims — and otherwise address social justice — instead of the real problems and the actual justice...
Have you seen how attached they get to cartoon characters?
No, actually, I haven't. Plush toys — yes, but not the characters on the other side of the TV glass...
clear emotional disconnection between Spongebob Squarepants and real people.
Cartoon characters are (portrayed as) sentient too — unlike Echo (or Roomba). If the kid is polite to a plush toy, that's nice. But if he is not — that's Ok too, as long as he is nice to humans (and pets).
Microsoft has published its own distribution of FreeBSD 10.3
I too have been building my own distribution of FreeBSD — since 1994. Unlike Linux folks, FreeBSD users are encouraged to build their own kernel and user-space. It is a trivial to do "out of the box" and allows to fine-tune CPU-optimization and add/remove support for various components.
There are plenty of FreeBSD images (such as here) to choose from in AWS' collection — with kernel (and the userspace) customized for Amazon's VMs. Makes all the sense for Azure to try to catch-up.
None of it warrants the claim of "Microsoft's own FreeBSD", however.
Slashdot Mirror
Wha?..
Huh? It costs two (or more) human's their time — the most precious resource we have in life... But you must've meant something else here — just what, I do not know...
Uber. And Lyft. And the like... They solve the problem of personal transportation for hire. They solve it cheaper than the old solution. The solve it better. The only people clinging to the old way are the rent-seeking governments — upset over the loss of revenues they were getting from the sales of medallions, and the poor taxi-drivers suckered into purchasing those.
Medallions are static and dumb — possessing one says: "Some time ago I and my vehicle were inspected by the city and found decent enough for you to hire me." Computers and ubiquitous personal smart phones obsoleted them like automobile obsoleted horse-driven carriages 100 years ago.
This is such a great news for all the little Statists out there: a multi-billion corporation (spit!) loses to the government officials seeking to retain control of transportation — as well as the massive fees collected from and the influence over those already "in" the system.
Is not it great, when a poor little Joe Shmoe can file a federal lawsuit against such a multi-billion dollar corporation on his own? Is this news not the right answer to the folks lamenting needing millions of dollars to legally fight such an opponent?
That a distinction even exists — allowing the enforcers from the Executive branch to make life hell for business-owners without even bothering with the Judiciary — is itself a major achievement for the Statism.
Of course, they only begin to complain about "overly strong government", when the wrong guy is about to take the reins. When it is their man, they wish he was a dictator — to do "more good quicker".
There is that... Shortly after Uber hired David Plouffe (the guy instrumental to putting Obama into office), I started getting spam from the company. E-mails asking me, whether I know, how "Uber helps minority drivers" or "how Uber helps the environment". That really was as sleazy a Democratic campaigns get, but the above-mentioned Statists usually lap this sort of thing up — even if the spam campaign misfired in my case and I know begin searching for a ride with Lyft.
Well, when Sarah Palin's private e-mail was hacked, reports weren't referring to her as just a mother and grand-mother — the capacity in which she used it and, incidentally, achievements far more serious than being an awareness raiser. No, the reports were referring to her as the Governor of Alaska and a VP-contender.
The story is, indeed. And yet, if they describe him, they should've listed things that make hum especially (in)famous. And, maybe, they did — must be real sad, when one's fame is based not on what one has achieved, but what was done to the person by others...
vi does not come with Windows. And Unix is just too easy for a real man.
Then, again, if the guy really wanted to show off, he'd have referred to MS-DOS or something. I'd be interested in reading his blog on running a Web-site on an OS, which could only maintain a single TCP-connection at a time (making even FTP very difficult). Ah, the bad old days...
Is this — his being a "Racial Justice Activist" — the best way to describe a person? The supposed profession seems straight out of the Onion's polls — along with other gems like "Grammar Innovator" and "Cactus Purchaser".
Seriously, has he done something more profound in his life than raising awareness and, if he did, why is not that mentioned in the write-up instead?
Well, at least now I have heard of the guy — the hack and /. have achieved for him, what his "activity" itself was never able to...
Ah, yes, sure. After Pascal and Lisp, then C++, then Java, then Ruby — all promising "a revolution" — we are due for another. The revolution to end all revolutions, perhaps?
Meanwhile, I spill my heart out admitting to having started with FORTRAN, and get downmodded to zilch by the snobs... Sigh.
Reality is racist: Blacks have nearly 3 times higher rate of single-parenthood in the US, than other races. And that — being raised without a father — is one giant reason for much higher likelihood of criminality later in life.
Whatever the reasons for that, it is not Google's fault.
I'm not equating them. But I do not see an argument, which can justify banning racial discrimination in business, that can not also be applied to banning racial discrimination in choosing friends and suitors.
Can you cite one?
If you needed an excuse, I would've accepted a note from your parents...
Thanks to Hulk/Thiel's victory, however, all of us average Joes are a little safer from media's prying eyes. And, given the government's history of buying from commercial suppliers the data, which it is not allowed to collect itself, from the government too.
And, should some other gav-gavker find our sex-life worthy of publication, it would be easier for us to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. The world really did become a (slightly) better place thanks to this case.
Why? Should a girl be required to explain to government, why she spurned two Black would-be suitors, but accepted the affections of an Asian?
The government must not be allowed to discriminate between citizens. Private parties should be free to do and be whatever they wish — including being bigots.
Sure. That's the rationale. My point is, it is still a violation of my freedom. I should not have to even have a reason — much less have one somebody else finds satisfactory.
The idea was sold to us 50 years ago on the promise of racial harmony. It failed to deliver that — as do most things, for which the price is liberty. It not only did not bring about racial harmony, it gave the government a heavy club to use against businesses and corporations. How about you just give us your customers' data, and we would not have to look into why your workforce is so disproportionally White?
The natural next step of that decades-old failed proposal you keep believing in is ensuring people do not reject not just customers, but would-be friends and partners for the "wrong" reasons. Are you prepared to defend this too?
No, actually, you can not — the laws allowing the forfeiture do not require police to prove anything. For example:
See? If the officer's suspicion was reasonable, the forfeiture will stand, even if no actual crime has ever been proven... This is far worse than a bogus warrant, because it allows literal robbery of completely innocent people, whereas with a warrant — justified or not — police still have to find evidence of a crime.
Huh?
I forgot, is it Google or Oracle? Which multi-billion dollar corporation needs our sympathy, cheers, and support today?
Is that why a Republican President (along with Republican-dominated Congress) allowed the fuck-ups like Enron, MCI, and Lehman Brothers to collapse, while a Democratic one bailed out GM, Chrysler (not the first one), and AIG?
Whether SJWs see the irony or not, both groups were/are correct:
Once you step away from liberty, you lose...
A few places are comparably free, but the vast majority of the world's population, regretfully, continues to live under regimes considerably more oppressive than the US. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects — like China or Russia — generally respectable places like India can be quite intolerant of unpopular opinions and authoritarian in controlling the information networks. It may seem crazy to Americans, but Germans and Brits, for another example, routinely get arrested simply for saying the wrong things on social media — in the US attempts to criminalize "hate speech" are still duly resisted.
Not to mention certain sunny locales, where one's had can be removed for apostasy.
Reducing America's control over the Internet will — inevitably and by definition — increase the share of control by these governments.
We've seen this before — UN's "Human Rights Council" is a good example of it. All of the things about it, that the so called "Liberals", dismiss as "myths", are actually quite true. It will happen to the Internet's governance — inasmuch as it needs any — as well.
Actually, no, it is not. You can challenge evidence obtained with such a warrant and avoid conviction.
Of course, there should be!
Once you even consider the idea, that having "too much" money is wrong, you've enabled a civil forfeiture somewhere...
It is not all lost — Nebraska, for one, has officially abolished civil forfeiture already. But it is certainly disheartening, that such an obvious injustice sprung up and continues to exist in the US, while people get fired up over complete nonsense and outright lies instead.
See, now America's attempts to keep them restrained in that area will be perceived as anti-science. Very, very clever...
Who is a "gun nut" now?
Indeed. And the "conscious" is defined as (emphasis mine):
A cross-dressing man may be "regarded" as a woman by well-meaning strangers, without being one. Show me a thinking cow...
Gait, not gate.
The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest. It still is not created by the police — but by the lawmakers.
This is nothing new, unfortunately, and people — myself included — have been complaining about it for years and decades. Unfortunately, ACLU et al. prefer to concentrate on the bogus "racism" claims — and otherwise address social justice — instead of the real problems and the actual justice...
What they are doing is completely legal. Your anger should be aimed at the enabling law-makers, not the police using the tools given to them.
My dictionary defines "sentient" as consciously perceiving — cows may feel pain, but they aren't conscientious and so it is Ok to eat them.
No, actually, I haven't. Plush toys — yes, but not the characters on the other side of the TV glass...
Cartoon characters are (portrayed as) sentient too — unlike Echo (or Roomba). If the kid is polite to a plush toy, that's nice. But if he is not — that's Ok too, as long as he is nice to humans (and pets).
Why be nice to a machine — a mere syntactic device?
Parents ought to teach kids to be polite to the sentient — yes. Unfortunately, lack of good manners there well predates any AI.
I too have been building my own distribution of FreeBSD — since 1994. Unlike Linux folks, FreeBSD users are encouraged to build their own kernel and user-space. It is a trivial to do "out of the box" and allows to fine-tune CPU-optimization and add/remove support for various components.
There are plenty of FreeBSD images (such as here) to choose from in AWS' collection — with kernel (and the userspace) customized for Amazon's VMs. Makes all the sense for Azure to try to catch-up.
None of it warrants the claim of "Microsoft's own FreeBSD", however.