People drink and drive mostly in locations where there are not alternatives to driving. I've not really seen many drunk drivers downtown as people walk to the pub. All the drunk drivers I've seen have been in the suburbs. There, taxis cost the same, but the pub is further. It appears that pub density is the problem, not taxi prices.
Not a better method! Don't take my JARRRRB. Lets pass laws to keep inefficiencies in the market so I don't have to adapt! Its almost like a whole new MPAA or RIAA. Seriously people. New business models are GOOD.
Either Uber plays by the current laws, or we free the current taxi companies from those same laws. Allowing one group to legally operate under different (and cheaper) laws because they are newcomers is pretty unfair. In my city, both taxis and Uber use a smartphone app to dispatch and have up-front flat rates, yet they are regulated differently and I think that sucks.
>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.
And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.
Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.
I sympathize with that somewhat and have some misgivings about them myself but for me, they haven't actually crossed the line yet. I'd be most happy for someone else to come along and kick their arse, however.
We draw the line in very different places. I do not place trust in an organization that has already in my eyes violated the trust of their other users several times and even when admitting it was in err not addressing the issue completely (refunding donations to a charity but keeping all the fees it earned on those donations, for example).
Paypal rarely, if ever, screws over the people who spend money with them. All the horror stories are about how paypal screws over the merchants by freezing the money in their accounts or forcing refunds for bogus claims of the product not being delivered.
I'm no fan of paypal but it doesn't help to blur their problems together.
We will never know if the claims are bogus or not, or why accounts are frozen because PayPal does not tell us. They act with whimsy and we have no legal recourse.
Yeah, but at least Paypal is a meth-head who is well known to you and, for many of us, not actually ever done us any harm.
They have not harmed me, that is true because I refuse to use them. They have lost my trust by showing that they have no interest in honoring a payment. For example, when they withheld donations to charities several times, admitted being wrong, apologized, returned the money, but kept the fees they charged. Just the fact that their policies give me no legal recourse against their whims (and they've shown they are whimsical many times) means I will not do business with them until they allow legal recourse or become regulated as a bank.
Does anyone else think that its getting too dangerous to keep some information in a digital form? Is some information destined to forever be kept in a printed form?
Both digital and analogue information cannot be secured perfectly; because some banks know not to change the default administrator from the well-known one is not a statement on how best to store a particular piece of information.
ABS is dangerous to people who learned to drive without it.
Only if the driver does not adapt to the new circumstance. Left-hand drive cars are dangerous in the hands of a driver who learned to drive a right-hand drive car for a similar reason: muscle memory not in-line with reality. The same can be said of transmission type, presence of power steering, torque, drive train, etc.
The only time I have ever slid though a stop sign in the snow was in an ABS vehicle.
That's one data point and says nothing about the safety of ABS versus not-ABS. It speaks only that your expectations and the actual performance of the cars systems differed and caused a dangerous situation. Thankfully muscle-memory is re-trainable.
Not in my dreams. I did not discover a huge new type of shark yesterday nor did I end up in Brazil selling a guy a bunch of old US yellowpages for $50.
It's hard to make your claim unless you remember all of your dreams.
So getting less sleep I can become more popular? Because, seriously, from my interactions in this world it seems that intelligent and helpful thoughts are actively discouraged. Maybe it's better to be dumb and happy.
If your goal is popularity, then go ahead and pander. If your goal is the betterment of yourself then find friends that don't discourage your growth and value the quality over quantity.
You can vote in government elections, you can vote with your wallet by supporting business that better support privacy, you can vote with your wallet form opting out from business models that make privacy impossible and you can communicate your views to others.
Democracy has always fared better when the public discourse was contributing. Businesses have always looked at their bottom lines first.
For example, I have three options for an ISP: Comcast, the local Telco and an old-school ISP. I go with the old-school ISP despite that I can only get 3MB DSL on my line and it costs more than Comcast. I do this because 3MB is enough for my needs. They don't filter any ports, they give me a static IP address and let me run any server I damn well please, they let me max out the line 24/7, they answer their phone in minutes with a competent tech when I call and I don't support a business who's hostile towards me. Three Mb/s is enough to stream SD, download HD for offline viewing, patch giant computer games overnight and send my backup data offsite. Yes, it's not as fast as 30 MB/s that Comcast offers me, but the more money they have to advance an agenda that harms most of the people in this country.
I'm just one persona and I am sure my $100 a month Comcast doesn't see does little, but if there were 100 million of me? That would send a message. Same goes for voting. Same goes for expressing what I do and why I do it.
How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?
I never said it was better. There are more than those two options.
Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government
How do you know what the Green or Libertarians will do when they have that kind of power?
If that's the case, it's still unusual. I've never been to a place where there was a sign required. Here in Seattle if there's a left turn green arrow, one may enter the intersection. In fact, signs are pretty rare. (Turn lane markings are not but we're talking about permission to turn not which lane one can turn from). It's the same, from what I recall in PA, NY, MA, FL and CA.
As it should be. Why shouldn't the taxation and services provided by government be clear rather than obfuscated with road markings that contradict written rules. I much rather raise taxes and have clear markings than have to read 60,000 regulations for every municipality I visit.
How NYC has to increase taxes because of "increased costs" of Open Data, which will amount to about 60-100k a year...
Nothing wrong with that. If the city needs money they should present their case and raise their taxes. Doing it through obfuscated parking regulations does everyone a disservice.
and what happens in California becomes the standard in the nation and the world
That's quite a tall statement. That is certainly true for some things, but I don't think California has quite the influence you seem to think it does. Most of the world, thankfully so, is quite different than California and is happy that way.
In US cities you can only park where there is a parking space explicitly drawn...
Wait, what? In Seattle you can park at the side of any street where there is not a prohibition against or restriction (by payment, time, permit, etc.) of parking.
The traffic light and painted arrows say it's a turn lane? Well, the fine print of the traffic law says it isn't without a sign too, so pay your fine.
Wait, unless there is a sign saying you can turn in Houston you can't turn? So like if there is a single lane coming up to a light you must go straight? This might be the most bizarre deviation from the rest of the country I've heard of.
No, the MARKET should choose, since there and only there does EVERYONE have a voice. But you guys want to impose your arbitrary opinions on the whole under force of arms. Disgusting.
The market also makes many choices, some of which benefit some sub-groups of the market and others of which are a detriment. My point was that in economics, policies do not benefit everyone equally.
Regardless, it's best to compare the most-common use-cases which are unknowledgeable users using their devices with software as-is from the box, which was my original point.
Slashdot Mirror
People drink and drive mostly in locations where there are not alternatives to driving. I've not really seen many drunk drivers downtown as people walk to the pub. All the drunk drivers I've seen have been in the suburbs. There, taxis cost the same, but the pub is further. It appears that pub density is the problem, not taxi prices.
Not a better method! Don't take my JARRRRB. Lets pass laws to keep inefficiencies in the market so I don't have to adapt! Its almost like a whole new MPAA or RIAA. Seriously people. New business models are GOOD.
Either Uber plays by the current laws, or we free the current taxi companies from those same laws. Allowing one group to legally operate under different (and cheaper) laws because they are newcomers is pretty unfair. In my city, both taxis and Uber use a smartphone app to dispatch and have up-front flat rates, yet they are regulated differently and I think that sucks.
>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.
And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.
Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.
I sympathize with that somewhat and have some misgivings about them myself but for me, they haven't actually crossed the line yet. I'd be most happy for someone else to come along and kick their arse, however.
We draw the line in very different places. I do not place trust in an organization that has already in my eyes violated the trust of their other users several times and even when admitting it was in err not addressing the issue completely (refunding donations to a charity but keeping all the fees it earned on those donations, for example).
Paypal rarely, if ever, screws over the people who spend money with them. All the horror stories are about how paypal screws over the merchants by freezing the money in their accounts or forcing refunds for bogus claims of the product not being delivered.
I'm no fan of paypal but it doesn't help to blur their problems together.
We will never know if the claims are bogus or not, or why accounts are frozen because PayPal does not tell us. They act with whimsy and we have no legal recourse.
Yeah, but at least Paypal is a meth-head who is well known to you and, for many of us, not actually ever done us any harm.
They have not harmed me, that is true because I refuse to use them. They have lost my trust by showing that they have no interest in honoring a payment. For example, when they withheld donations to charities several times, admitted being wrong, apologized, returned the money, but kept the fees they charged. Just the fact that their policies give me no legal recourse against their whims (and they've shown they are whimsical many times) means I will not do business with them until they allow legal recourse or become regulated as a bank.
Does anyone else think that its getting too dangerous to keep some information in a digital form? Is some information destined to forever be kept in a printed form?
Both digital and analogue information cannot be secured perfectly; because some banks know not to change the default administrator from the well-known one is not a statement on how best to store a particular piece of information.
ABS is dangerous to people who learned to drive without it.
Only if the driver does not adapt to the new circumstance. Left-hand drive cars are dangerous in the hands of a driver who learned to drive a right-hand drive car for a similar reason: muscle memory not in-line with reality. The same can be said of transmission type, presence of power steering, torque, drive train, etc.
The only time I have ever slid though a stop sign in the snow was in an ABS vehicle.
That's one data point and says nothing about the safety of ABS versus not-ABS. It speaks only that your expectations and the actual performance of the cars systems differed and caused a dangerous situation. Thankfully muscle-memory is re-trainable.
Because it's at least trying to do something, even if you know it's a wasted effort.
Sounds like you have some hope then, which is very different than truly believing voting is absolutely pointless.
Not in my dreams. I did not discover a huge new type of shark yesterday nor did I end up in Brazil selling a guy a bunch of old US yellowpages for $50.
It's hard to make your claim unless you remember all of your dreams.
So getting less sleep I can become more popular? Because, seriously, from my interactions in this world it seems that intelligent and helpful thoughts are actively discouraged. Maybe it's better to be dumb and happy.
If your goal is popularity, then go ahead and pander. If your goal is the betterment of yourself then find friends that don't discourage your growth and value the quality over quantity.
Apathy is the NSA's most powerful tool.
That is the most important sentence I've read here. It also applies to more than just the NSA.
You can vote in government elections, you can vote with your wallet by supporting business that better support privacy, you can vote with your wallet form opting out from business models that make privacy impossible and you can communicate your views to others.
Democracy has always fared better when the public discourse was contributing. Businesses have always looked at their bottom lines first.
For example, I have three options for an ISP: Comcast, the local Telco and an old-school ISP. I go with the old-school ISP despite that I can only get 3MB DSL on my line and it costs more than Comcast. I do this because 3MB is enough for my needs. They don't filter any ports, they give me a static IP address and let me run any server I damn well please, they let me max out the line 24/7, they answer their phone in minutes with a competent tech when I call and I don't support a business who's hostile towards me. Three Mb/s is enough to stream SD, download HD for offline viewing, patch giant computer games overnight and send my backup data offsite. Yes, it's not as fast as 30 MB/s that Comcast offers me, but the more money they have to advance an agenda that harms most of the people in this country.
I'm just one persona and I am sure my $100 a month Comcast doesn't see does little, but if there were 100 million of me? That would send a message. Same goes for voting. Same goes for expressing what I do and why I do it.
I do vote and write to representatives - I'm just not foolish enough to think it actually makes a difference.
If you believe voting is a no-op, then why do you expend the mental and physical energy to do so? That seems irrational.
How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?
I never said it was better. There are more than those two options.
Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government
How do you know what the Green or Libertarians will do when they have that kind of power?
This OP meant "allowed to turn when traffic signal shows red and directional arrow", like this:
https://www.google.com/search?...
If that's the case, it's still unusual. I've never been to a place where there was a sign required. Here in Seattle if there's a left turn green arrow, one may enter the intersection. In fact, signs are pretty rare. (Turn lane markings are not but we're talking about permission to turn not which lane one can turn from). It's the same, from what I recall in PA, NY, MA, FL and CA.
As it should be. Why shouldn't the taxation and services provided by government be clear rather than obfuscated with road markings that contradict written rules. I much rather raise taxes and have clear markings than have to read 60,000 regulations for every municipality I visit.
How NYC has to increase taxes because of "increased costs" of Open Data, which will amount to about 60-100k a year...
Nothing wrong with that. If the city needs money they should present their case and raise their taxes. Doing it through obfuscated parking regulations does everyone a disservice.
and what happens in California becomes the standard in the nation and the world
That's quite a tall statement. That is certainly true for some things, but I don't think California has quite the influence you seem to think it does. Most of the world, thankfully so, is quite different than California and is happy that way.
In US cities you can only park where there is a parking space explicitly drawn...
Wait, what? In Seattle you can park at the side of any street where there is not a prohibition against or restriction (by payment, time, permit, etc.) of parking.
The traffic light and painted arrows say it's a turn lane? Well, the fine print of the traffic law says it isn't without a sign too, so pay your fine.
Wait, unless there is a sign saying you can turn in Houston you can't turn? So like if there is a single lane coming up to a light you must go straight? This might be the most bizarre deviation from the rest of the country I've heard of.
Was talking about the AC commenting, not Cook. Fool boy see me after class.
You are correct. I misread. When is class over? I would like my extra-curricular lesson, Sir.
No, the MARKET should choose, since there and only there does EVERYONE have a voice. But you guys want to impose your arbitrary opinions on the whole under force of arms. Disgusting.
The market also makes many choices, some of which benefit some sub-groups of the market and others of which are a detriment. My point was that in economics, policies do not benefit everyone equally.
Regardless, it's best to compare the most-common use-cases which are unknowledgeable users using their devices with software as-is from the box, which was my original point.