Well this is the issue, Uber and their drivers both claim they aren't employees.
Uber is a new (ish) type of business model, so applying old business model rules doesn't always work.
It's a little more complex than that, because as a 'business' you need to have public liability insurance for any legal liability. Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident. The disconnect is that if I pick up a hitch-hiker, and cause damage, the legal liability is different to if I pick up that exact same person in exchange for reward. The actual liability should be the same, but legally it is treated differently because it's a business. This is the gap that the likes of Uber and Airbnb need to bridge.
Somewhere the law needs to recognise a new type of operator, somewhere between a sole operator and a casual 'share-economy' service provider, and provide necessary legislation to cover this new business model.
BS. Commercial insurance costs about $500 a month,
I was looking at signing up as an Uber driver, simply for some part time fun and a little pocket money. I figure I could work 1 or 2 nights a week and try and earn $100 for beer money . If insurance is $500, then it's not economically viable for me.
Insurance is just as much a con as taxi licenses.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the very few people who I've seen wearing Apple watches are the dorks in IT.
It's a dork fad and always will be.
which may affect how the car chooses to act when it gets close to the object/person. (Slowing down when it gets close to the human, even if it's not in the car's direct path)
This is why the robot car will suck. It will have to be slow to be over-cautious, and this will make it unappealing, if not the laughing stock of other car owners. If you've ever been a passenger of on old person you will know this is not an experience anyone will pay money for.
That's fine. Apple has the Watch-for-rich-snobs edition for $17000.
Apple has a watch for rappers and drug dealers. Anyone with any sense of style is not going to ruin a look of refined elegance with a tacky piece of electronics.
and start offering "Swiss-style" smartwatches at a reasonable price.
Er... a "Swiss watch" means it is driven by mechanical gears as opposed to batteries and/or quartz. ie a swiss smartwatch is an oxymoron, which is why Swiss watches are favoured by rich people. It's not there to tell the time, it's their to demonstrate how much money you have, AND the fact you don't actually need it for anything (ie just like a diamond ring)
Probably says more about you than the cuff links (not in a bad way, just your exposure). I work in the Finance part of town. It's wall to wall cuff links, slim fit suits, tan brogues and swiss watches. Rich people tend to be conservative, and tend to follow conservative style trends (ie retro rather than techno),
The next generation of iWatch will have longer lasting batteries and more features. Why would people need traditional watches, again?
To demonstrate their wealth and refined sense of taste. The same reason they wear expensive, impractical shoes or suits. Let's not even pretend that anything Apple makes falls into that market segment.
"The difference I don't consider anything he did to be evil." - I'm not the first person to claim that. And you might feel differently if you were on the receiving end of his dirty tricks.
Like Liebnitz against Newton? Or Hitler against Churchill? King George III and Jefferson etc?
All great men make enemies. Therefore simply having them doesn't preclude them from being great.
Except that YOUR standards for "annoyed" and "surveillance" may be very difference from the next guy's
Yeah, so you also being a human, need to think carefully about your actions to ensure you don't piss other people off. Just like any other situation in real life.
Those broken eggs were not about necessity. They were about greed, but mostly about the lust for control and power without any regards for the greater good.
You're still upset about having to manually install another browser aren't you?
History will remember Bill as a visionary business leader and philanthropist. All the little hate from inconsequential nerds who expected everything for free won't count for squat.
Gates also broke laws. You may remember that he is a convicted monopolist. Just like Rockefeller. And, just like Rockefeller, he turned to philanthropy late in life so that people like you would forget his evil deeds earlier in life. This is the Robber Baron playbook that I referred to.
The difference I don't consider anything he did to be evil. And claiming such makes you look a little bit whacko.
You can be sure he has something up his sleeve.
Yeah improving lives, which is more than you've done. So where-ever you put Bill on the scale of contributions to humanity, you are a lot further down the list so hardly in any position to throw barbs.
there's no reason to believe either computation or medicine can't be provided by the market.
Except for the fact that the most free market medical system in the western world is also one of the worst performing. Apart from that, yeah it's all good...
While I do believe that it's possible to design a nuclear reactor that won't murder an entire city and poison an entire state for a thousand years when it breaks down, I'm way too cynical to ever believe anyone who makes that claim about the particular nuclear reactor they're trying to sell. Because that's the exact same claim they made about the Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island reactors.
So instead of coming up with methods to make thing safer (even Chernobyl, the worst accident ever still killed less than deaths from coal over the years), your suggestion is to throw your hands up in the air and say it can't be done?
A simple solution to your fear is to have the people evaluating the design separate from the people selling the design. This isn't rocket science.
If it occurs entirely on my property, then I reserve that right.
Think about it. Let's say that somebody who's lost pulls their car into your driveway. You don't think they're polite enough when they ask for directions, so you shoot out their windshield with a shotgun. It's on your property, right? No. You're going to jail.
No, because being a human I actually have been empowered with the ability to judge each circumstance on it's own merits. I know this is the Internet and you must assume one rule should be applied to it's extreme so you can argue the toss just for the sake of it, but annoying me and my family with a cheap unmanned, illegally operated surveillance toy is not really the same as shooting a car with a person in it.
If you can't work that out then don't bother continuing this argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You get insurance automatically when you drive with a fare. You don't need to spend anything on it.
Uber claim this, but whether this is legally binding is another matter. My insurance company says no, and I'm not prepared to go to court to find out.
Well this is the issue, Uber and their drivers both claim they aren't employees.
Uber is a new (ish) type of business model, so applying old business model rules doesn't always work.
It's a little more complex than that, because as a 'business' you need to have public liability insurance for any legal liability. Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident. The disconnect is that if I pick up a hitch-hiker, and cause damage, the legal liability is different to if I pick up that exact same person in exchange for reward. The actual liability should be the same, but legally it is treated differently because it's a business. This is the gap that the likes of Uber and Airbnb need to bridge.
Somewhere the law needs to recognise a new type of operator, somewhere between a sole operator and a casual 'share-economy' service provider, and provide necessary legislation to cover this new business model.
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.
So this never happened then?
A lot of western countries offer no-cost health care to their citizens, why would these people need extra insurance?
In my country we already have free health care so why would I need this insurance?
BS. Commercial insurance costs about $500 a month,
I was looking at signing up as an Uber driver, simply for some part time fun and a little pocket money. I figure I could work 1 or 2 nights a week and try and earn $100 for beer money . If insurance is $500, then it's not economically viable for me.
Insurance is just as much a con as taxi licenses.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the very few people who I've seen wearing Apple watches are the dorks in IT.
It's a dork fad and always will be.
which may affect how the car chooses to act when it gets close to the object/person. (Slowing down when it gets close to the human, even if it's not in the car's direct path)
This is why the robot car will suck. It will have to be slow to be over-cautious, and this will make it unappealing, if not the laughing stock of other car owners. If you've ever been a passenger of on old person you will know this is not an experience anyone will pay money for.
Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?
If it carries a human it is already out-dated...
That's fine. Apple has the Watch-for-rich-snobs edition for $17000.
Apple has a watch for rappers and drug dealers. Anyone with any sense of style is not going to ruin a look of refined elegance with a tacky piece of electronics.
When you wear a tux, you look like a dork. Cufflinks or no.
Says nerd on nerd website. Women I've met say otherwise. You'll forgive me if I take their opinion over yours...
and start offering "Swiss-style" smartwatches at a reasonable price.
Er... a "Swiss watch" means it is driven by mechanical gears as opposed to batteries and/or quartz. ie a swiss smartwatch is an oxymoron, which is why Swiss watches are favoured by rich people. It's not there to tell the time, it's their to demonstrate how much money you have, AND the fact you don't actually need it for anything (ie just like a diamond ring)
Probably says more about you than the cuff links (not in a bad way, just your exposure). I work in the Finance part of town. It's wall to wall cuff links, slim fit suits, tan brogues and swiss watches. Rich people tend to be conservative, and tend to follow conservative style trends (ie retro rather than techno),
The next generation of iWatch will have longer lasting batteries and more features. Why would people need traditional watches, again?
To demonstrate their wealth and refined sense of taste. The same reason they wear expensive, impractical shoes or suits. Let's not even pretend that anything Apple makes falls into that market segment.
"The difference I don't consider anything he did to be evil." - I'm not the first person to claim that. And you might feel differently if you were on the receiving end of his dirty tricks.
Like Liebnitz against Newton? Or Hitler against Churchill? King George III and Jefferson etc?
All great men make enemies. Therefore simply having them doesn't preclude them from being great.
Except that YOUR standards for "annoyed" and "surveillance" may be very difference from the next guy's
Yeah, so you also being a human, need to think carefully about your actions to ensure you don't piss other people off. Just like any other situation in real life.
Management, which is pretty much universally a bunch of besuited sleazeball politician-on-the-take types,
I can only guess your limited experience has given you this poorly thought out view. I suggest you read this: http://www.cracked.com/article...
Those broken eggs were not about necessity. They were about greed, but mostly about the lust for control and power without any regards for the greater good.
You're still upset about having to manually install another browser aren't you?
History will remember Bill as a visionary business leader and philanthropist. All the little hate from inconsequential nerds who expected everything for free won't count for squat.
Gates also broke laws. You may remember that he is a convicted monopolist. Just like Rockefeller. And, just like Rockefeller, he turned to philanthropy late in life so that people like you would forget his evil deeds earlier in life. This is the Robber Baron playbook that I referred to.
The difference I don't consider anything he did to be evil. And claiming such makes you look a little bit whacko.
You can be sure he has something up his sleeve.
Yeah improving lives, which is more than you've done. So where-ever you put Bill on the scale of contributions to humanity, you are a lot further down the list so hardly in any position to throw barbs.
They still have refrigerators, lights, heaters, fans, machines, etc.
I take it you've never been outside your own country? The farmers in poor countries which Bill is targeting generally don't have all those things.
there's no reason to believe either computation or medicine can't be provided by the market.
Except for the fact that the most free market medical system in the western world is also one of the worst performing. Apart from that, yeah it's all good...
Sounds to me like that is more of a parenting issue, not a problem with porn.
Like drugs and alcohol etc? Just blame the parents...
While I do believe that it's possible to design a nuclear reactor that won't murder an entire city and poison an entire state for a thousand years when it breaks down, I'm way too cynical to ever believe anyone who makes that claim about the particular nuclear reactor they're trying to sell. Because that's the exact same claim they made about the Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island reactors.
So instead of coming up with methods to make thing safer (even Chernobyl, the worst accident ever still killed less than deaths from coal over the years), your suggestion is to throw your hands up in the air and say it can't be done?
A simple solution to your fear is to have the people evaluating the design separate from the people selling the design. This isn't rocket science.
If it occurs entirely on my property, then I reserve that right.
Think about it. Let's say that somebody who's lost pulls their car into your driveway. You don't think they're polite enough when they ask for directions, so you shoot out their windshield with a shotgun. It's on your property, right? No. You're going to jail.
No, because being a human I actually have been empowered with the ability to judge each circumstance on it's own merits. I know this is the Internet and you must assume one rule should be applied to it's extreme so you can argue the toss just for the sake of it, but annoying me and my family with a cheap unmanned, illegally operated surveillance toy is not really the same as shooting a car with a person in it.
If you can't work that out then don't bother continuing this argument.