I (hereafter known as "The Plaintiff") was not consulted prior to Mr. Wells (hereafter known as "The Defendant") before he advertised his ideas to the plaintiff on the internet. This breech of the plaintiff's property rights over the plaintiff's attention and time has caused the plainriff material damages amounting to 10 minutes of time in reading, considering, and responding against the plaintiff's interests. There was an additional 20 minutes time of intense cursing and throwing of objects due to the emotional distress the defendant's depravity and violation of the plaintiff's human rights. Compensatory damages of 30 minutes of average labor costs for the plaintiff and all lawyer fees are sought; as well $250,000 in punitive damages for the reckless disregard to which the defendant treats the basic rights of humanity.
So this is built on the same principles of the Google image tagging algorithm that decided Blacks were Gorillas. This should prove entertaining even if it fails to be useful.
Extortion is when the discoverer of the bug states "Pay me or I'll use this bug to hack you." You could perhaps make a viable argument that blackmail is when anyone with knowledge of the bug states "Pay me or I'll exercise my free speech Rights."
But there's a lurking negligence issue here. If the man hours versus bounty payout to discover a bug comes in at under the minimum wage, then any half-wit lawyer could make a viable argument that these for-profit companies had reckless disregard about the safety and or suitability of their product. A full-wit lawyer could make a viable argument that any for-profit company that relied on volunteerism for a significant portion of its quality control exhibited reckless disregard.
The way you've described it, entering a not-guilty plea is an obstruction of justice.
Fundamentally, the government -- in the US -- has no right to your papers and effects until a warrant has been served. After which we can start talking about obstruction or the destruction of evidence.
A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
Ignoring that rents will increase to suck up the slack, sure. This also is Economics 101.
Notionally, Uber runs limousines. The distinction between the two is that a taxi can, and does, and is required to, pick up randoms that flag them down. As long as an Uber car is unmarked we can state that this doesn't happen in practice.
If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.
We already have regulations for that. They're called a Driver's License and Mandatory Insurance. They already apply to anyone that operates a motor vehicle on the roads for, in part, just the scenario you mentioned. The most particularly interesting part about driving for hire is that a Commerical Driver's License with a Passenger Endorsement is required for transporting civilians in various vehicles. Where 'various vehicles' depends on the nature of the business. Making the regulation equal here would be to simply open up passenger endorsements for bog-standard Class C licenses; rather than the current guild-like nature of things.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
The pricing model for cab companies is usually mandated by regulation; though this is not typically the case with limousines. The difference between the two is largely whether or not the driver is permitted to pick up some random that flags them down on the sidewalk. Cabs are not only 'yes' but required to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I (hereafter known as "The Plaintiff") was not consulted prior to Mr. Wells (hereafter known as "The Defendant") before he advertised his ideas to the plaintiff on the internet. This breech of the plaintiff's property rights over the plaintiff's attention and time has caused the plainriff material damages amounting to 10 minutes of time in reading, considering, and responding against the plaintiff's interests. There was an additional 20 minutes time of intense cursing and throwing of objects due to the emotional distress the defendant's depravity and violation of the plaintiff's human rights. Compensatory damages of 30 minutes of average labor costs for the plaintiff and all lawyer fees are sought; as well $250,000 in punitive damages for the reckless disregard to which the defendant treats the basic rights of humanity.
So this is built on the same principles of the Google image tagging algorithm that decided Blacks were Gorillas. This should prove entertaining even if it fails to be useful.
Extortion is when the discoverer of the bug states "Pay me or I'll use this bug to hack you." You could perhaps make a viable argument that blackmail is when anyone with knowledge of the bug states "Pay me or I'll exercise my free speech Rights." But there's a lurking negligence issue here. If the man hours versus bounty payout to discover a bug comes in at under the minimum wage, then any half-wit lawyer could make a viable argument that these for-profit companies had reckless disregard about the safety and or suitability of their product. A full-wit lawyer could make a viable argument that any for-profit company that relied on volunteerism for a significant portion of its quality control exhibited reckless disregard.
The way you've described it, entering a not-guilty plea is an obstruction of justice. Fundamentally, the government -- in the US -- has no right to your papers and effects until a warrant has been served. After which we can start talking about obstruction or the destruction of evidence.
A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
Ignoring that rents will increase to suck up the slack, sure. This also is Economics 101.
they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.
Notionally, Uber runs limousines. The distinction between the two is that a taxi can, and does, and is required to, pick up randoms that flag them down. As long as an Uber car is unmarked we can state that this doesn't happen in practice.
If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.
We already have regulations for that. They're called a Driver's License and Mandatory Insurance. They already apply to anyone that operates a motor vehicle on the roads for, in part, just the scenario you mentioned. The most particularly interesting part about driving for hire is that a Commerical Driver's License with a Passenger Endorsement is required for transporting civilians in various vehicles. Where 'various vehicles' depends on the nature of the business. Making the regulation equal here would be to simply open up passenger endorsements for bog-standard Class C licenses; rather than the current guild-like nature of things.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
The pricing model for cab companies is usually mandated by regulation; though this is not typically the case with limousines. The difference between the two is largely whether or not the driver is permitted to pick up some random that flags them down on the sidewalk. Cabs are not only 'yes' but required to do so.