It's less about the regulation and more about the cost of the medallion that allows them to have a car on the street.
The main idea of the medallion is to keep the number of cars on the street to a reasonable number so it will have to be applied to uber sooner or later.
Not in NYC. In NYC undispatched rides are regulated an dispatched rides are unregulated(ish).
The regulation is mainly about keeping the streets from becoming overcrowded and reducing throughput. It would probably make the most sense to just tax time in the street for all cars equally. Then you could even do peak taxing and improve efficiency.
Clearly you never worked for the government in the US. The government is intentionally fire walled all over the place. Most people think that politicians are in charge of the day to day, but any former president (or Obama in recent comments) can tell you that they are not. Agencies are separate and communication--much less data sharing--across agencies is a huge pain in the ass. When it comes to states or counties communicating with the federal government there basically has to be a huge benefit to both sides and probably some money changing hands.
Yes, this is the flaw in a source code only audit. But just compile it yourself and use those binaries. Now, good luck finding a compiler that you know is clean. Even an OSS one can have code in it that recognizes when it is compiling itself and adds the back door to the newly compiled version of the compiler. So while the code is clean, you also have to know that the compiler that compiled the compiler was clean. and not the current version of its source but the binary.
The proof of correctness of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (to pick one example) relies on the fact that the transition probability for its proposals is symmetric (that is, Q(x|y) = Q(y|x)).
That's the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm in chapter 1. The one in the rest of the book doesn't assume that. However, it does assume that the probability is non-zero.
I think that in U.S. law that allies of a country that you have declared war on are, automatically, countries that you have declared war on. This is why the authorization of force in Afghanistan turned into such a mess. The congress thought it was limited but because of this rule it essentially meant that any organization friendly to our enemies in Afghanistan was now a target of the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
This is pre-Adam Smith bull shit. Decreasing trade is not how you build the wealth of a nation. Basically, when an industry gets lots of high productivity workers added to it, this has the potential to simply increase incumbent worker salaries. That is, it could increase productivity of all workers to have a larger, more productive, workforce in place. There is a tendency to see this as a zero sum game but there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
There is a good reason to down vote these reviews. Even without malice, there is a tendency towards positive reviews from this sort of reviewer. This need not be the reviewers intention, but the manufacturer's will tend to select people who they think will write positive reviews regardless of the reason. As a reader of these reviews, being wary of them makes sense. They are, inherently, less useful.
Why is it unethical to sell off the headsets? I'd say it's unethical to keep them. If you sell them, fewer resources will have to be put to use making new ones.
First of all, lawyers getting rich of a case like this isn't all bad. If the options are (1) let some ass continue doing something harmful to everyone, or (2) make some lawyer rich and stop the ass, I'd take (2) over (1) every time. But lawyer's fees are usually capped at a percentage of the final settlement, so it has to be better than (2) by a long shot.
It's inefficient (economically) that you can't sue for lawyer's fees, but that's what "pain and suffering" portions of settlements usually cover. Removing their possibility is basically making a person pay for their lawyer out of the fungible loses that they incurred.
Remember, any time you think "the voters aren't smart enough, we need a special person to impose the correct solution": that's authoritarian government, and no matter how justly it might begin it never ends well.
J.J. Rousseau disagrees with you. You might enjoy his books.
Try OS X? Shutdowns are essentially irrelevant for application states. The only exception I've run into is an interactive session with an interpreted language. But event that isn't universal if you're willing to let click buttons (annoying) to let it save it's state.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, there is this thing called the tragedy of the commons. There are solutions to it. Medallions are an example solution. Some regulation is good.
It's less about the regulation and more about the cost of the medallion that allows them to have a car on the street.
The main idea of the medallion is to keep the number of cars on the street to a reasonable number so it will have to be applied to uber sooner or later.
there is this thing called economic costs that you may want to look into.
Except that the cost of the medallion is a function of how useful it is, so the service quality is basically all there is.
Not in NYC. In NYC undispatched rides are regulated an dispatched rides are unregulated(ish).
The regulation is mainly about keeping the streets from becoming overcrowded and reducing throughput. It would probably make the most sense to just tax time in the street for all cars equally. Then you could even do peak taxing and improve efficiency.
Clearly you never worked for the government in the US. The government is intentionally fire walled all over the place. Most people think that politicians are in charge of the day to day, but any former president (or Obama in recent comments) can tell you that they are not. Agencies are separate and communication--much less data sharing--across agencies is a huge pain in the ass. When it comes to states or counties communicating with the federal government there basically has to be a huge benefit to both sides and probably some money changing hands.
Yes, this is the flaw in a source code only audit. But just compile it yourself and use those binaries. Now, good luck finding a compiler that you know is clean. Even an OSS one can have code in it that recognizes when it is compiling itself and adds the back door to the newly compiled version of the compiler. So while the code is clean, you also have to know that the compiler that compiled the compiler was clean. and not the current version of its source but the binary.
wow, bypassing the hosts file is just... wow. Before I read this I would have told you MS was at least being honest on their slow crawl to death.
If you buy such a drug it would be manufacturing costs. Many are basically free, e.g. I think I last paid $2 for a 10 day course.
Cute theory. The economic collapse might concern you though.
The proof of correctness of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (to pick one example) relies on the fact that the transition probability for its proposals is symmetric (that is, Q(x|y) = Q(y|x)).
That's the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm in chapter 1. The one in the rest of the book doesn't assume that. However, it does assume that the probability is non-zero.
America is a thing too. It's not just Jacks and Kevins. If it isn't then we'll never be able to get another loan and we'll be really, really fucked.
the Pyrenees seems like the best answer to me.
I think that in U.S. law that allies of a country that you have declared war on are, automatically, countries that you have declared war on. This is why the authorization of force in Afghanistan turned into such a mess. The congress thought it was limited but because of this rule it essentially meant that any organization friendly to our enemies in Afghanistan was now a target of the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
Ah, you appear to understand WW II history. Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?
shhhhhhhhhhh
Under your theory should we be forgiven all debts that predate you too?
This is pre-Adam Smith bull shit. Decreasing trade is not how you build the wealth of a nation. Basically, when an industry gets lots of high productivity workers added to it, this has the potential to simply increase incumbent worker salaries. That is, it could increase productivity of all workers to have a larger, more productive, workforce in place. There is a tendency to see this as a zero sum game but there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
There is a good reason to down vote these reviews. Even without malice, there is a tendency towards positive reviews from this sort of reviewer. This need not be the reviewers intention, but the manufacturer's will tend to select people who they think will write positive reviews regardless of the reason. As a reader of these reviews, being wary of them makes sense. They are, inherently, less useful.
Why is it unethical to sell off the headsets? I'd say it's unethical to keep them. If you sell them, fewer resources will have to be put to use making new ones.
crap, I wondered why I was getting so much odd traffic. Shouldn't have built my server to that spec.
Depends on what you think of his autobiography.
First of all, lawyers getting rich of a case like this isn't all bad. If the options are (1) let some ass continue doing something harmful to everyone, or (2) make some lawyer rich and stop the ass, I'd take (2) over (1) every time. But lawyer's fees are usually capped at a percentage of the final settlement, so it has to be better than (2) by a long shot.
It's inefficient (economically) that you can't sue for lawyer's fees, but that's what "pain and suffering" portions of settlements usually cover. Removing their possibility is basically making a person pay for their lawyer out of the fungible loses that they incurred.
Remember, any time you think "the voters aren't smart enough, we need a special person to impose the correct solution": that's authoritarian government, and no matter how justly it might begin it never ends well.
J.J. Rousseau disagrees with you. You might enjoy his books.
Try OS X? Shutdowns are essentially irrelevant for application states. The only exception I've run into is an interactive session with an interpreted language. But event that isn't universal if you're willing to let click buttons (annoying) to let it save it's state.