you're referring to uber drivers or taxi drivers? because uber and lyft take care of these.
1) there's a background check process when you sign up. 2) the user rates the driver 1-5 after every interaction, and you can provide feedback with every rating like dirty car, bad routing etc.
the other thing is that uber and lyft have 100% control over whether a driver works or is cut off. I'm sure if people complain about low-profit routes or extortion they would be "fired". I've never heard concern about working too many hours in a day, but presumably uber or lyft can cut the drivers off after a certain number hours if it became a problem.
if you had half a clue, you'd know why the current implementation of Uber and Lyft is a disaster waiting to happen.
Uber and Lyft can't do what they do and offer ridiculously lower rates while at the same time providing the same level of safety.
I'm very interested in your thoughts here. Personally I've been using Uber and Lyft for about 6 months and I absolutely love the convenience and pleasantness. My understanding is that both services provide insurance to cover the passenger. Uber just started to charge a $1/ride fee.
what is it you think is the problem? what do you think will surface? please no snark, I'm genuinely curious.
That sounds like a perfect fit for technically inferior "free" (goog | fb) products with fake security that spy on you and report everything back to (goog | fb).
think of it as a monopoly board, right? each player is trying to get a monopoly by controlling properties then building houses. this is like uber drivers trying to get fares instead of taxis. except uber is better right? the way monopoly has hotels vs. houses.
no tengo property.
I wouldn't be drunk or high so i doubt it would be reckless like vehiclular manslaughter
DMV might get mad because I got in a crash without insurance.
a lien sucks, but it's the worst case scenario, even if you win a bazillion dollar settlement from me.
it's true that you can have problems with progressive or whoever if they hear you're doing uber. but uber provides a million in liability coverage for your passengers regardless. I'm not sure what the deal is for the people that you crash in to.
Apple is the private sector equivalent to the NSA.
any support for this argument? goog and fb are the ones sucking up and sorting through everybody's info. how is apple the bad guy here? they've gone to great lengths to limit govt intrusion and even notify people when the govt serves a warrant on their accounts.
there's no back door. Apple's iCloud syncs some information across all devices. For ex if I take a photo with my iphone it automatically syncs with my ipad and my macbook. obv the photo must be uploaded from the phone and live on an apple server somewhere, so it's vulnerable to supoena.
in other news, apple will begin notifying users of supoena requests LINK
yup, in america we call it wage slavery. mcdonalds, walmart, subway, papa johns, numerous tipped workers at restaurants everywhere...
yeah the difference is if you don't like it at walmart you can go work somewhere else, or go to school, or have kids and stay home, or whatever you want. it sucks to be poor, but poverty has existed since money existed. that's different than slavery,.
america is built on everybody acting in their enlightened self interest. if you have two autonomous cars and both act in self interest, it is probably the best way to minimize a crash. similarly if you have one autonomous and one non-autonomous car, the driver in the non-autonomous car will act in his self-interest anyway.
what about disease? surely disease isn't the fault of the rich. and you can't say there's any limitations on vaccinating your children or getting health care, in the US or other advanced nations. it's only in poor countries where they go out of their way to stop vaccinations, and get polio instead.
no. there are two issues involved here "assumption of risk" and negligent behavior. assumption of risk means that cars are dangerous, and sometimes there are crashes where people die. but negligent behavior in this context means you had the power to reduce damages and save this girl's life, and you chose not to for stupid reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
you're saying this is unique to uber/lyft but not to taxicabs?
you're referring to uber drivers or taxi drivers? because uber and lyft take care of these.
1) there's a background check process when you sign up.
2) the user rates the driver 1-5 after every interaction, and you can provide feedback with every rating like dirty car, bad routing etc.
the other thing is that uber and lyft have 100% control over whether a driver works or is cut off. I'm sure if people complain about low-profit routes or extortion they would be "fired". I've never heard concern about working too many hours in a day, but presumably uber or lyft can cut the drivers off after a certain number hours if it became a problem.
I find the whole system to work really well.
if you had half a clue, you'd know why the current implementation of Uber and Lyft is a disaster waiting to happen.
Uber and Lyft can't do what they do and offer ridiculously lower rates while at the same time providing the same level of safety.
I'm very interested in your thoughts here. Personally I've been using Uber and Lyft for about 6 months and I absolutely love the convenience and pleasantness. My understanding is that both services provide insurance to cover the passenger. Uber just started to charge a $1/ride fee.
what is it you think is the problem? what do you think will surface? please no snark, I'm genuinely curious.
That sounds like a perfect fit for technically inferior "free" (goog | fb) products with fake security that spy on you and report everything back to (goog | fb) .
ftfy
loudness war ftw!
think of it as a monopoly board, right? each player is trying to get a monopoly by controlling properties then building houses. this is like uber drivers trying to get fares instead of taxis. except uber is better right? the way monopoly has hotels vs. houses.
no tengo property. I wouldn't be drunk or high so i doubt it would be reckless like vehiclular manslaughter DMV might get mad because I got in a crash without insurance. a lien sucks, but it's the worst case scenario, even if you win a bazillion dollar settlement from me.
it's true that you can have problems with progressive or whoever if they hear you're doing uber. but uber provides a million in liability coverage for your passengers regardless. I'm not sure what the deal is for the people that you crash in to.
yes, exactly correct. the thing I like best abut uber and lyft is that the drivers are pleasant people.
it takes a couple weeks to be approved as an uber driver, which includes interviews and background checks.
but uber already does background checks and requires insurance and provides additional insurance.
ssl bugs like heartbleed? ohyeahright apple was immune to heartbleed because they fixed it years ago across all their products and services.
Apple is the private sector equivalent to the NSA.
any support for this argument? goog and fb are the ones sucking up and sorting through everybody's info. how is apple the bad guy here? they've gone to great lengths to limit govt intrusion and even notify people when the govt serves a warrant on their accounts.
there's no back door. Apple's iCloud syncs some information across all devices. For ex if I take a photo with my iphone it automatically syncs with my ipad and my macbook. obv the photo must be uploaded from the phone and live on an apple server somewhere, so it's vulnerable to supoena.
in other news, apple will begin notifying users of supoena requests LINK
idk, it was kind of hush-hush. just a rumor.
I heard through back channels that it was a security hole in the hvac system itself.
yeah the difference is if you don't like it at walmart you can go work somewhere else, or go to school, or have kids and stay home, or whatever you want. it sucks to be poor, but poverty has existed since money existed. that's different than slavery,.
the issue is the camera can act as a gateway into otherwise secure systems. kind of like how the target CC hack happened through the HVAC system.
america is built on everybody acting in their enlightened self interest. if you have two autonomous cars and both act in self interest, it is probably the best way to minimize a crash. similarly if you have one autonomous and one non-autonomous car, the driver in the non-autonomous car will act in his self-interest anyway.
what about disease? surely disease isn't the fault of the rich. and you can't say there's any limitations on vaccinating your children or getting health care, in the US or other advanced nations. it's only in poor countries where they go out of their way to stop vaccinations, and get polio instead.
Knock knock Who is it? A drone A drone who? Whoooooooosh!
What's so good and beneficial about public order?
i think the only approach that works in total is for every autonomous car to behave in its own best interest.
So you would have it choose to mow down the stationary infant in its stroller as opposed to tapping a parking pickup truck backing up at at 10 MPH?
maybe the stroller is full of empty cans. what would you do?
no. there are two issues involved here "assumption of risk" and negligent behavior. assumption of risk means that cars are dangerous, and sometimes there are crashes where people die. but negligent behavior in this context means you had the power to reduce damages and save this girl's life, and you chose not to for stupid reasons.