What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
Courts do not adapt or change or add or delete laws. They rule based on existing law, they can interpret where things are not clear, but that is all they should and can do. So, in this case, court is doing exactly what they should do, and that is rule on the applicability of taxi laws to Uber.
Lawmakers will change the laws when there is enough motivation to do so, be it public demand, pressing social issue, etc. Sometimes lawmakers wait for court rulings such as this one to help determine what needs to be changed.
Given how sliw the procurement process works and at the end you get the lowers"qualified" bidder who may or may not provide what tou need it isno wonder people bypass it any way they can.
Also, there is an added cost to go through a bid process for both the vendor and the government, and there is added cost to move to a new vendor both in schedule in interface development. I would hope they took this in to account when estimating the savings, but I haven't read the detailed report. But $45 million out of a $1 billion set of contracts is not that bad. Of course, it all adds up.......
The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
Not if you consider time for the signal to reach us. Theoretically we could be getting signals from civilizations spanning a very wide time period, going way way back. There may be a likelihood that any signal we receive is from a long dead civilization.
I see you can't discuss the particulars of a topic like this without dragging in your political agenda. And without getting angry at others who are not.
Spare me your lectures. You don't do a very good job of making your points, some of which I actually think may be somewhat valid, because you engulf them in angry generalizations and doomsaying. Basically, you come across as they guy with a "The end is near" sign.
I'm sorry to day that ultimately, Uber will disappoint you, as they care nothing about your political point of view, they are out to make as much money as quickly as they possibly can, and nothing else.
Putting an advertisement could constitute as monetizing the stream;
They could, you never know what a judge will rule, but there is a good case also to be made that the ad is monetizing the access app and not the stream itself, as the stream doesn't start till after you access it. I could see it going either way, but unless the broadcasters get in the fight, and I doubt they will, it won't be part of the case. In fact, that would be a different case altogether.
I think Slingbox should have at least put a 'skip' feature on the ads that pops up after a few seconds. Long ads are gonna piss people off when they are trying to tune in to a program already in progress.
I was not passing judgement on what is 'fine' or whatever. I was not endorsing nor defending Uber. I was simply analyzing the situation as it is today, and along the way making some devil's advocate points to some that seem to oversimplify the situation.
And, by the way, the Uber issue is not only a US issue, just check out what happened in France a few weeks ago with the taxi drivers.
But hey, never is a chance to take a shot at the US, right? I sure whatever country you live in is much better in every way.
Can you hail a Uber as you see it go through the street by waving at it?
No, you can't. Ride sharing service is not the right term for it, but neither is Taxi.
It is more like a Taxi service than anything else. You can schedule rides with Taxis or Uber. Just because Taxis provide additional services doesn't put the services Uber provides in a different category. It is selling rides. Call them a 'ride selling' company, and Taxis would also be considered that as well. The definition of a Taxi service is definitely not "a service you can hail on the streetside".
It doesn't matter if I am ok with it or not. The point is, there is simply no freaking way your trick will work. You might believe it should, you might want it to, I might want it to, but you simply don't understand it isn't so simple.
Costco is a membership club, yet they must adhere to accessibility regulations. You don't see big companies skirting regulations by becoming 'clubs'. There is a reason for that.
But that's the whole point. It's not available to the general public if you must pay a fee and register as a member.
I think you are making quite an assumption that a large company can skirt regulations with such a trick. You may want to see what other bounds there are on private club qualification besides just charging a member fee, and also what types of business can operate as a club and be exempt from certain (but not all) regulations. For example, a private club cannot violate fire codes.
I'm sure the types of tricks you are coming up with have all been tried before in many different ways.
I'm not sure the membership trick would work. If it is available to the general public, it becomes quite murky.
Maybe you'd like to be the one who chooses which companies must comply with certain regs, and which don't, but as a matter of public policy, it becomes very complicated once you start parsing regs based on those criteria. I think Uber is a great idea, but that doesn't really matter when it come to fairness.
If you want to propose to do away with the regulations altogether, and let companies choose based on market demand, you'll need to come out and say it. That has nothing to do with Uber specifically, but it is one example you could cite. That is a legitimate position, and I'm sure the libertarian side would be fully behind you.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government, and not forced upon private enterprises. Towns and cities themselves should operate transport for the disabled. Government should also foot the bill for wheelchair access and the like. I'm not against accessibility, just against forcing business owners to pay for it in cases other than necessities.
Have you ever complained about this before, or did this just become an issue for you now that it affects your beloved Uber? Its been common practice for a very long time.
Yes, if Uber assist is making cars available for those that need them, that is, there is enough of them to serve that market adequately, then that would bring them in to compliance. But I sense that UberASSIST availability is severely limited, hence the complaints.
Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve. Taxi companies have handicap friendly vehicles that are dispatched to those customers, and they keep enough available to handle those requests. It would make no sense to outfit every vehicle, I am surprised you didn't think that through.
If anyone would ever bother, the statisticians could also determine that living in a city that is controlled by democrats correlates with a greater likelihood of being robbed. Also I suppose you could do a study showing living next to black people likely correlates to being a victim of a serious crime. Of coarse you can not actually publish such a study because it's entire premise is politically incorrect and racist. You can however publish a study saying that living next to a fracking site will send you to the hospital
Science at it's best.
Actually, you can publish those studies, but the difference is the press would not embrace them and push them mindlessly.
Well, if people are complaining about electricity being dirty because in many places it's still produced using coal, and you say that extracting petroleum is so much easier than extracting coal, a logical conclusion would be that we should ditch coal and just burn petroleum to make electricity. OK, you didn't actual "say" that, but it would be a logical conclusion.
It would only be a logical conclusion for someone that really knows very little about energy production and delivery, and doesn't think hard. There are reasons different sources are chosen for different applications. Cost per BTU extraction is really only a small part. And when you mix prices vs extraction energy in your logic, you confuse yourself, they are two very different things, even if though there is a relationship.
Other things that matter are... value of energy density, storage needs and methods (power plants need a 90 day supply and don't care about volume and large tanks are expensive, cars need very high energy density and small tanks are cheap.... , pollution for given application (ICE can burn petro a lot cleaner and more efficiently than a boiler), Those are just a few off the top of my head, there are more if you think it through. But even with that, you may have not realized that burning oil was the popular form of electrical production in the early days.
And if it was a wrong conclusion (which I think it is), there must be something wrong with one of the premises
No, there was something wrong with your application of the premise, mixing of price and energy extraction, and lack of understanding of the many factor at play. Or it was simply you trying to be clever but not really achieving it.
Anyway, we've got plenty of clean energy in Europe and getting more and more, so at least over here in the developed world the choice for electric cars should be clear.
Don't kid yourself. You have invested a lot in renewables, mostly by Germany, but you still have a lot of coal burning. Your overall CO2 output has not really dropped, at least not in any amount enough to make any difference. If the goal is to have a lot of solar panels and windmills, you are doing well. If the goal is solve the CO2 problem, nobody is really getting anywhere.
The study is not a cost comparison. The study is not even an energy use comparison. The study is a pollution comparison.
Once again, they also do no include the sourcing and transportation contributions of coal either. And they are very transparent regarding what is included.
They also don't include the impacts from lithium extraction and distribution for batteries. Nor the impacts of battery replacement/recycling.
Slashdot Mirror
What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
Courts do not adapt or change or add or delete laws. They rule based on existing law, they can interpret where things are not clear, but that is all they should and can do. So, in this case, court is doing exactly what they should do, and that is rule on the applicability of taxi laws to Uber.
Lawmakers will change the laws when there is enough motivation to do so, be it public demand, pressing social issue, etc. Sometimes lawmakers wait for court rulings such as this one to help determine what needs to be changed.
That kind of accounting would not be scandalous here, and likely result in huge bonuses instead.
Fat bonuses for short term profit margins are the reason for the scandal to begin with.
Basically, I upgrade my OS when I decide I want new hardware, which isn't very often any more.
oops, meant $52 williou... in my ceiling mirror.
I thought it was $25 williou, but I was looking at it in the mirror.
Given how sliw the procurement process works and at the end you get the lowers"qualified" bidder who may or may not provide what tou need it isno wonder people bypass it any way they can.
Also, there is an added cost to go through a bid process for both the vendor and the government, and there is added cost to move to a new vendor both in schedule in interface development. I would hope they took this in to account when estimating the savings, but I haven't read the detailed report. But $45 million out of a $1 billion set of contracts is not that bad. Of course, it all adds up.......
The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
Not if you consider time for the signal to reach us. Theoretically we could be getting signals from civilizations spanning a very wide time period, going way way back. There may be a likelihood that any signal we receive is from a long dead civilization.
I see you can't discuss the particulars of a topic like this without dragging in your political agenda. And without getting angry at others who are not.
Spare me your lectures. You don't do a very good job of making your points, some of which I actually think may be somewhat valid, because you engulf them in angry generalizations and doomsaying. Basically, you come across as they guy with a "The end is near" sign.
I'm sorry to day that ultimately, Uber will disappoint you, as they care nothing about your political point of view, they are out to make as much money as quickly as they possibly can, and nothing else.
^of course, 'already in progress' thought was kind of short sighted, as the program is DVRd... so much for thinking while typing.....
Putting an advertisement could constitute as monetizing the stream;
They could, you never know what a judge will rule, but there is a good case also to be made that the ad is monetizing the access app and not the stream itself, as the stream doesn't start till after you access it. I could see it going either way, but unless the broadcasters get in the fight, and I doubt they will, it won't be part of the case. In fact, that would be a different case altogether.
I think Slingbox should have at least put a 'skip' feature on the ads that pops up after a few seconds. Long ads are gonna piss people off when they are trying to tune in to a program already in progress.
I was not passing judgement on what is 'fine' or whatever. I was not endorsing nor defending Uber. I was simply analyzing the situation as it is today, and along the way making some devil's advocate points to some that seem to oversimplify the situation.
And, by the way, the Uber issue is not only a US issue, just check out what happened in France a few weeks ago with the taxi drivers.
But hey, never is a chance to take a shot at the US, right? I sure whatever country you live in is much better in every way.
I don't love it, nor hate it. I just analyze it. You are happy to find excuses to dismiss it entirely. How wonderful an approach to learning.
I also sense you cannot come up with a rational response for a world that does not fit your desires, so you come up with an emotional one.
Exactly what is my belief system? Seem like you are working with insufficient information on that as well.
Can you hail a Uber as you see it go through the street by waving at it?
No, you can't. Ride sharing service is not the right term for it, but neither is Taxi.
It is more like a Taxi service than anything else. You can schedule rides with Taxis or Uber. Just because Taxis provide additional services doesn't put the services Uber provides in a different category. It is selling rides. Call them a 'ride selling' company, and Taxis would also be considered that as well. The definition of a Taxi service is definitely not "a service you can hail on the streetside".
It doesn't matter if I am ok with it or not. The point is, there is simply no freaking way your trick will work. You might believe it should, you might want it to, I might want it to, but you simply don't understand it isn't so simple.
Costco is a membership club, yet they must adhere to accessibility regulations. You don't see big companies skirting regulations by becoming 'clubs'. There is a reason for that.
But that's the whole point. It's not available to the general public if you must pay a fee and register as a member.
I think you are making quite an assumption that a large company can skirt regulations with such a trick. You may want to see what other bounds there are on private club qualification besides just charging a member fee, and also what types of business can operate as a club and be exempt from certain (but not all) regulations. For example, a private club cannot violate fire codes.
I'm sure the types of tricks you are coming up with have all been tried before in many different ways.
I'm not sure the membership trick would work. If it is available to the general public, it becomes quite murky.
Maybe you'd like to be the one who chooses which companies must comply with certain regs, and which don't, but as a matter of public policy, it becomes very complicated once you start parsing regs based on those criteria. I think Uber is a great idea, but that doesn't really matter when it come to fairness.
If you want to propose to do away with the regulations altogether, and let companies choose based on market demand, you'll need to come out and say it. That has nothing to do with Uber specifically, but it is one example you could cite. That is a legitimate position, and I'm sure the libertarian side would be fully behind you.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government, and not forced upon private enterprises. Towns and cities themselves should operate transport for the disabled. Government should also foot the bill for wheelchair access and the like. I'm not against accessibility, just against forcing business owners to pay for it in cases other than necessities.
Have you ever complained about this before, or did this just become an issue for you now that it affects your beloved Uber? Its been common practice for a very long time.
You mean like UberASSIST?
Yes, if Uber assist is making cars available for those that need them, that is, there is enough of them to serve that market adequately, then that would bring them in to compliance. But I sense that UberASSIST availability is severely limited, hence the complaints.
Deny access to everyone because Uber isn't ADA compliant?
They should apply the same answer they would with any other company not in compliance, unless you think Uber should get special treatment.
>
Most Taxis are not Handicapped friendly. .
Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve. Taxi companies have handicap friendly vehicles that are dispatched to those customers, and they keep enough available to handle those requests. It would make no sense to outfit every vehicle, I am surprised you didn't think that through.
If Uber drivers are truly independent contractors, do they have to abide by the ADA?
Maybe, but it certainly would seem to apply to Uber itself.
If anyone would ever bother, the statisticians could also determine that living in a city that is controlled by democrats correlates with a greater likelihood of being robbed. Also I suppose you could do a study showing living next to black people likely correlates to being a victim of a serious crime. Of coarse you can not actually publish such a study because it's entire premise is politically incorrect and racist. You can however publish a study saying that living next to a fracking site will send you to the hospital
Science at it's best.
Actually, you can publish those studies, but the difference is the press would not embrace them and push them mindlessly.
Well, if people are complaining about electricity being dirty because in many places it's still produced using coal, and you say that extracting petroleum is so much easier than extracting coal, a logical conclusion would be that we should ditch coal and just burn petroleum to make electricity. OK, you didn't actual "say" that, but it would be a logical conclusion.
It would only be a logical conclusion for someone that really knows very little about energy production and delivery, and doesn't think hard. There are reasons different sources are chosen for different applications. Cost per BTU extraction is really only a small part. And when you mix prices vs extraction energy in your logic, you confuse yourself, they are two very different things, even if though there is a relationship.
Other things that matter are... value of energy density, storage needs and methods (power plants need a 90 day supply and don't care about volume and large tanks are expensive, cars need very high energy density and small tanks are cheap.... , pollution for given application (ICE can burn petro a lot cleaner and more efficiently than a boiler), Those are just a few off the top of my head, there are more if you think it through. But even with that, you may have not realized that burning oil was the popular form of electrical production in the early days.
And if it was a wrong conclusion (which I think it is), there must be something wrong with one of the premises
No, there was something wrong with your application of the premise, mixing of price and energy extraction, and lack of understanding of the many factor at play. Or it was simply you trying to be clever but not really achieving it.
Anyway, we've got plenty of clean energy in Europe and getting more and more, so at least over here in the developed world the choice for electric cars should be clear.
Don't kid yourself. You have invested a lot in renewables, mostly by Germany, but you still have a lot of coal burning. Your overall CO2 output has not really dropped, at least not in any amount enough to make any difference. If the goal is to have a lot of solar panels and windmills, you are doing well. If the goal is solve the CO2 problem, nobody is really getting anywhere.
The study is not a cost comparison. The study is not even an energy use comparison. The study is a pollution comparison.
Once again, they also do no include the sourcing and transportation contributions of coal either. And they are very transparent regarding what is included.
They also don't include the impacts from lithium extraction and distribution for batteries. Nor the impacts of battery replacement/recycling.