You're not paying the Uber driver. They dont see that money. Uber collects from the passenger electronically then calculates a commission based on that fare (80% where I am) and pays the driver om sunday the aggregate commissions earned.
Technicality, yes. But in law those are two distinct transactions. Many business models work this way paying on commission only, so why does Uber get the short end of the stick?
And that is the same technicality that taxi drivers have. You are giving money to the company they drive for, not to them. They get paid by the company. Only the tip (which you presumably also give an Uber driver) goes directly to the driver.
There could be a compromise. American in the U.S. here.
How about allowing the legalization of it as a "hobby"? If someone earns less than $2000 (USD) per year, require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
I'm all in favor of them doing it as a hobby as long as they don't collect money for it. If they collect money, then they need to abide by the regulations.
Words are just words. If you think humans are overcrowded and are killing off the wildlife, then set a good example and make that ultimate sacrifice for nature. Perhaps others will follow your example.
Do you really own your house? Or is real owner the bank that you pay every month or the government agency you pay to keep that house supposedly "yours" twice a year?
With today's mortgage interest rates if I could pay cash for a house, I would be a fool to do so. Also, it's always nice to have a company full of lawyers on your insurance policy in case you have a claim and your insurance company decides they don't want to pay. Technically. the government leases me the land that my house is on for 99 years at a stretch. But if I were to sell my house, I don't have to ask the government's or the banks permission, and people will pay me money for it, though some will go to the bank. So if I own it enough to where people will pay me money for it, I guess that is close enough to ownership for me.
A world where I can't own my own car? We already don't own our software. What's next? Not owning our house? How many more things will we no longer own but continue to pay the same amount as we did when we owned them? This future sounds dreadful.
There is no way talking on the phone with hands free is any more distracting than talking with someone sitting in your car. If that is the case than you may as well make it illegal for anyone to talk in a car while driving, this is just stupid.
Of course it is much more distracting to talk hands free than with someone in the car. With someone in the car, you can hear the entire audio range of what they are saying and it is far easier to understand what they are saying. With a voice over a hands free set, you are limited to the frequencies which are passed through by the cell phone carrier. If the person on the other end is also on a cell phone, then you are probably also fighting with a microphone that is not in the proper place for picking up the voice, is not a particularly good microphone anyway, and is also picking up surrounding noise from the other person's environment.
Context of the story aside, my worst experiences with taxis have all been in Las Vegas. Being being asshats with lawyer ties to politicians, they are angry at their customers just for being customers. It has gotten to the point where I'd rather pay for a private car or take a hotel shuttle over a taxi any time we visit Las Vegas. I've been yelled at, my wife's bags tossed to the ground and just made really uncomfortable when dealing with them.
In my experience, the taxis were fine, it was the customers in the taxi stand trying to trick you into sharing a ride for free (for them) that bothered me.
So then. Tell me how it feels to steal from Slashdot? After all that is what you are doing with ublock.
Slashdot gives me the option to turn off ads, but I have not done so. I do use adblock, but that is because slashdot is not the only site on the internet and other sites have ruined it for all.
I think it is disingenuous to call it "stealing" from someone just because you won't allow them to use your bandwidth and your time and your computation resources and install malicious code, viruses and spyware on your computer. If I lock my door, am I "stealing" from a robber?
If you consider it stealing to not display an ad, you might as well consider it stealing to not buy every product advertised at you. The site would get a lot more money if you actually bought the products. In many cases, they get NOTHING for displaying an ad, only for clicks. Sometimes, only for clicks that lead to purchases. So if you don't purchase every single thing that is advertised at you, you are stealing.
Haven't we had this discussion multiple times before?
Yes, but idiots keep pointing out how illegal Uber is without stopping to think about whether those laws are just. Nobody gives a fuck about the argument that what Uber is doing is illegal, unless they are already anti-Uber. Legality does not equal morality, so breaking the law is not in itself a sign of evil.
If the laws are not just, then petition your congressmen to change them. Don't just break the law because you don't like it.
Besides, Uber doesn't WANT the law to change. They WANT The taxis to continue to have to pay all the extra costs of doing business. They WANT any other new entrants besides themselves to have to pay for a license. They want everyone else to obey the law and they want their own unique advantage by not obeying the law.
The defenders of Uber talk about unjust laws, but Uber LOVES those laws.
Soda is not expensive enough for the hipster crowd. Why drink 12 ounce cans of Coca-Cola that can be bought in bulk for $0.35 a can when you can instead buy 1.93 ounce 5 hour energy in bulk for only $1.98. That is almost 50 times as much per ounce, so it appeals to the hipster. Or, if they want to appear to be drinking LARGE expensive drinks, then they drink 16 ounce Monster energy drinks available for $1.42 per can, which is still acceptable for hipsters because it is 3 times as expensive as soda. For the pretentious health nut hipster, nothing will do but bottled water, which is unfortunately only 25% more expensive than soda, but the fact that it it healthy makes up for it to the hipster. The fact that the plastic ends up in a landfill is not the hipsters problem.
What is the point of looking for evidence on a crime which has already been tried? They can't put him on trial again. That would be illegal. So the search for evidence was "because we can".
Geez, I know its completely unreasonable to expect Slashdotters to RTFA, and its probably wishful thinking to expect them to RTFS, but, c'mon, is it too much to ask that you RTFC you replied to?
However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes
See, he never was put on trial because he was never arrested because the prosecutor didn't think he had enough evidence to get a conviction. So that leaves the police to gather more evidence in the meantime. Now I don't know what the statute of limitations are in California for sexual battery and such, but as long as it hasn't been exceeded, the police are free to continue investigating the allegations.
So because he would have been found not guilty, they decided not to try him, which leaves him in a state of assumed guilt where they constantly seek evidence against him. That doesn't sound like the proper way to run a legal system. Either somebody was accused and goes to trial or they decide that it is not even worth going to trial due to lack of evidence and they assume you are innocent and leave you alone. An accusation cannot leave you with a lifetime of having to prove you are innocent.
As long as they make Obama drag out his laptops and his Blackberry every time he re-enters the country, then I am fine with them doing that to mayors and to us, too. After all, a leader must lead by example, or he is no leader at all.
By giving up his password, he is in violation of his city's computer security protocols. The same is true for probably just about everybody on slashdot. We have no right or authority to give over our passwords to anyone. We also have no right to allow anyone to view any information on our company's computer equipment. In some cases, anyone viewing that information may be in violation of state or federal laws. At my previous position, anyone viewing that information would first have to take an approved HIPAA training class and then sign a release and notify all of the affected parties.
Been to China? Then his computers are probably full of Chinese spyware and keyloggers that he doesn't even suspect.
So a thorough check and disinfection is probably justified.
Your computer is just as likely be filled with Chinese spyware and keyloggers while sitting comfortably in your living room as it is in China.
Silva was under separate investigations in 2012 and 2013 for sexual battery. He was also alleged to have secretly taped female juveniles changing clothes at his residence. However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes. My guess is that the authorities are looking for evidence of those crimes as well as any crimes committed while in China.
What is the point of looking for evidence on a crime which has already been tried? They can't put him on trial again. That would be illegal. So the search for evidence was "because we can".
We're deep into diminishing-returns territory on the benefits of population. Cutting back on population growth would let us focus more on the education and support of what kids we do have, netting a greater overall amount of scientific output than we'd get by just breeding like roaches.
It's a shame that the people with access to education and who have the skills and the environment to make a difference are heeding your warning and not breeding, while the people in the world who have no food, no education and no future continue to breed like the cockroaches you mention.
With SolarCity you don't buy the system, you just choose to use them as a service provider and pay them per kw/hr for what they generate. They own the panels and all the other hardware, installation, and maintenance. The upside is you aren't responsible for doing anything other than paying your monthly generation bill. There are two major downsides.
The other downside is that they only install where they get special deals from the local power company, I've talked to SolarCity, they won't install here because I'm a member of a cooperative that only provides a $1,000 rebate for installing solar. The other for-profit companies give much higher rebates.
From both of these responses, I can tell that these supposed do-gooders are actually about the solar equivalent of nursing home medicare fraudsters or ambulance chasers.
I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.
Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....
Thanks for calling recruiter from India...
That's OK, if you had pursued it you would have to fill out their application. One of the questions on the application is "What is your H1b Visa number?" If you do not fill it out, due to being a citizen, then your resume goes in the garbage. These companies openly discriminate against hiring United States citizens in favor of H1b Visa holding nationals of other countries. There are Indian consulting companies who have literally not a single United States citizens employed with them. and yet millions of other companies around the United States are able to find United States citizens to do the job. This should be firing off all kinds of alarm bells to anyone looking at these Indian consulting companies. They are breaking the law and need to be punished.
They could just turn the engine off during emissions tests and get a zero emissions rating. Does that meet the letter of the law in your opinion?
From what I know of the emissions testing, that would fail for two reasons. 1) The engine must be running at 1500 RPM for the test and 2) The engine must produce between X and Y amounts of certain emission compounds. If it is emitting zero, it will fail.
I think there is an expectation that a new car pass emissions test without cheating, especially one that is advertised being cleaner than typical cars.
And it will, unless it is flashed to not do so. The whole "cheat" that they did was to exactly meet or surpass the criteria of the emissions test, but to turn off the function in real world driving, thus providing more performance, longer lasting engine and better gas mileage. They also met the letter of the law, but the outcry is over the fact that the spirit of the law as interpreted by some has been violated.
They are definitely guilty of something. It just might not be a criminal offense. Just like how speeding tickets are not criminal offenses. That doesn't mean they are not guilty of breaking any laws.
They are guilty of meeting the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not paying the Uber driver. They dont see that money. Uber collects from the passenger electronically then calculates a commission based on that fare (80% where I am) and pays the driver om sunday the aggregate commissions earned.
Technicality, yes. But in law those are two distinct transactions. Many business models work this way paying on commission only, so why does Uber get the short end of the stick?
And that is the same technicality that taxi drivers have. You are giving money to the company they drive for, not to them. They get paid by the company. Only the tip (which you presumably also give an Uber driver) goes directly to the driver.
There could be a compromise. American in the U.S. here.
How about allowing the legalization of it as a "hobby"? If someone earns less than $2000 (USD) per year, require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
I'm all in favor of them doing it as a hobby as long as they don't collect money for it. If they collect money, then they need to abide by the regulations.
Words are just words. If you think humans are overcrowded and are killing off the wildlife, then set a good example and make that ultimate sacrifice for nature. Perhaps others will follow your example.
Do you really own your house? Or is real owner the bank that you pay every month or the government agency you pay to keep that house supposedly "yours" twice a year?
With today's mortgage interest rates if I could pay cash for a house, I would be a fool to do so. Also, it's always nice to have a company full of lawyers on your insurance policy in case you have a claim and your insurance company decides they don't want to pay. Technically. the government leases me the land that my house is on for 99 years at a stretch. But if I were to sell my house, I don't have to ask the government's or the banks permission, and people will pay me money for it, though some will go to the bank. So if I own it enough to where people will pay me money for it, I guess that is close enough to ownership for me.
A world where I can't own my own car? We already don't own our software. What's next? Not owning our house? How many more things will we no longer own but continue to pay the same amount as we did when we owned them? This future sounds dreadful.
your irrelevance than it does about twitter. People with a life, not dottering neckbeards, are twitter's target demographic.
You mean people who only have life if that life is validated by someone else.
There is no way talking on the phone with hands free is any more distracting than talking with someone sitting in your car. If that is the case than you may as well make it illegal for anyone to talk in a car while driving, this is just stupid.
Of course it is much more distracting to talk hands free than with someone in the car. With someone in the car, you can hear the entire audio range of what they are saying and it is far easier to understand what they are saying. With a voice over a hands free set, you are limited to the frequencies which are passed through by the cell phone carrier. If the person on the other end is also on a cell phone, then you are probably also fighting with a microphone that is not in the proper place for picking up the voice, is not a particularly good microphone anyway, and is also picking up surrounding noise from the other person's environment.
Context of the story aside, my worst experiences with taxis have all been in Las Vegas. Being being asshats with lawyer ties to politicians, they are angry at their customers just for being customers. It has gotten to the point where I'd rather pay for a private car or take a hotel shuttle over a taxi any time we visit Las Vegas. I've been yelled at, my wife's bags tossed to the ground and just made really uncomfortable when dealing with them.
In my experience, the taxis were fine, it was the customers in the taxi stand trying to trick you into sharing a ride for free (for them) that bothered me.
So then. Tell me how it feels to steal from Slashdot? After all that is what you are doing with ublock.
Slashdot gives me the option to turn off ads, but I have not done so. I do use adblock, but that is because slashdot is not the only site on the internet and other sites have ruined it for all.
I think it is disingenuous to call it "stealing" from someone just because you won't allow them to use your bandwidth and your time and your computation resources and install malicious code, viruses and spyware on your computer. If I lock my door, am I "stealing" from a robber?
If you consider it stealing to not display an ad, you might as well consider it stealing to not buy every product advertised at you. The site would get a lot more money if you actually bought the products. In many cases, they get NOTHING for displaying an ad, only for clicks. Sometimes, only for clicks that lead to purchases. So if you don't purchase every single thing that is advertised at you, you are stealing.
Haven't we had this discussion multiple times before?
Yes, but idiots keep pointing out how illegal Uber is without stopping to think about whether those laws are just. Nobody gives a fuck about the argument that what Uber is doing is illegal, unless they are already anti-Uber. Legality does not equal morality, so breaking the law is not in itself a sign of evil.
If the laws are not just, then petition your congressmen to change them. Don't just break the law because you don't like it.
Besides, Uber doesn't WANT the law to change. They WANT The taxis to continue to have to pay all the extra costs of doing business. They WANT any other new entrants besides themselves to have to pay for a license. They want everyone else to obey the law and they want their own unique advantage by not obeying the law.
The defenders of Uber talk about unjust laws, but Uber LOVES those laws.
Sorry, adblock, time to let your product die and we will go on to a product that actually blocks ads
Soda is not expensive enough for the hipster crowd. Why drink 12 ounce cans of Coca-Cola that can be bought in bulk for $0.35 a can when you can instead buy 1.93 ounce 5 hour energy in bulk for only $1.98. That is almost 50 times as much per ounce, so it appeals to the hipster. Or, if they want to appear to be drinking LARGE expensive drinks, then they drink 16 ounce Monster energy drinks available for $1.42 per can, which is still acceptable for hipsters because it is 3 times as expensive as soda. For the pretentious health nut hipster, nothing will do but bottled water, which is unfortunately only 25% more expensive than soda, but the fact that it it healthy makes up for it to the hipster. The fact that the plastic ends up in a landfill is not the hipsters problem.
What is the point of looking for evidence on a crime which has already been tried? They can't put him on trial again. That would be illegal. So the search for evidence was "because we can".
Geez, I know its completely unreasonable to expect Slashdotters to RTFA, and its probably wishful thinking to expect them to RTFS, but, c'mon, is it too much to ask that you RTFC you replied to?
However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes
See, he never was put on trial because he was never arrested because the prosecutor didn't think he had enough evidence to get a conviction. So that leaves the police to gather more evidence in the meantime. Now I don't know what the statute of limitations are in California for sexual battery and such, but as long as it hasn't been exceeded, the police are free to continue investigating the allegations.
So because he would have been found not guilty, they decided not to try him, which leaves him in a state of assumed guilt where they constantly seek evidence against him. That doesn't sound like the proper way to run a legal system. Either somebody was accused and goes to trial or they decide that it is not even worth going to trial due to lack of evidence and they assume you are innocent and leave you alone. An accusation cannot leave you with a lifetime of having to prove you are innocent.
As long as they make Obama drag out his laptops and his Blackberry every time he re-enters the country, then I am fine with them doing that to mayors and to us, too. After all, a leader must lead by example, or he is no leader at all.
By giving up his password, he is in violation of his city's computer security protocols. The same is true for probably just about everybody on slashdot. We have no right or authority to give over our passwords to anyone. We also have no right to allow anyone to view any information on our company's computer equipment. In some cases, anyone viewing that information may be in violation of state or federal laws. At my previous position, anyone viewing that information would first have to take an approved HIPAA training class and then sign a release and notify all of the affected parties.
Been to China? Then his computers are probably full of Chinese spyware and keyloggers that he doesn't even suspect. So a thorough check and disinfection is probably justified.
Your computer is just as likely be filled with Chinese spyware and keyloggers while sitting comfortably in your living room as it is in China.
Silva was under separate investigations in 2012 and 2013 for sexual battery. He was also alleged to have secretly taped female juveniles changing clothes at his residence. However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes. My guess is that the authorities are looking for evidence of those crimes as well as any crimes committed while in China.
What is the point of looking for evidence on a crime which has already been tried? They can't put him on trial again. That would be illegal. So the search for evidence was "because we can".
We're deep into diminishing-returns territory on the benefits of population. Cutting back on population growth would let us focus more on the education and support of what kids we do have, netting a greater overall amount of scientific output than we'd get by just breeding like roaches.
It's a shame that the people with access to education and who have the skills and the environment to make a difference are heeding your warning and not breeding, while the people in the world who have no food, no education and no future continue to breed like the cockroaches you mention.
With SolarCity you don't buy the system, you just choose to use them as a service provider and pay them per kw/hr for what they generate. They own the panels and all the other hardware, installation, and maintenance. The upside is you aren't responsible for doing anything other than paying your monthly generation bill. There are two major downsides.
The other downside is that they only install where they get special deals from the local power company, I've talked to SolarCity, they won't install here because I'm a member of a cooperative that only provides a $1,000 rebate for installing solar. The other for-profit companies give much higher rebates.
From both of these responses, I can tell that these supposed do-gooders are actually about the solar equivalent of nursing home medicare fraudsters or ambulance chasers.
I figured they were being qualified. That's the only way I can explain the recruitment calls I get.
Ok, you found me on linkedin, you can see then I have a great full time job. Sure I'd love to sell my home and quit my job so I can move across the country for a 2 month contract gig that might be extended based on their needs.....
Thanks for calling recruiter from India...
That's OK, if you had pursued it you would have to fill out their application. One of the questions on the application is "What is your H1b Visa number?" If you do not fill it out, due to being a citizen, then your resume goes in the garbage. These companies openly discriminate against hiring United States citizens in favor of H1b Visa holding nationals of other countries. There are Indian consulting companies who have literally not a single United States citizens employed with them. and yet millions of other companies around the United States are able to find United States citizens to do the job. This should be firing off all kinds of alarm bells to anyone looking at these Indian consulting companies. They are breaking the law and need to be punished.
We've all been there: It's nearly 2 in the morning and you're cruising around the Internet looking for new domain names to purchase.
Actually, no - I can't say I've ever done this. It seems like a colossal waste of time.
Exactly, more like "Only scummy domain squatters have been there:"
They could just turn the engine off during emissions tests and get a zero emissions rating. Does that meet the letter of the law in your opinion?
From what I know of the emissions testing, that would fail for two reasons. 1) The engine must be running at 1500 RPM for the test and 2) The engine must produce between X and Y amounts of certain emission compounds. If it is emitting zero, it will fail.
I think there is an expectation that a new car pass emissions test without cheating, especially one that is advertised being cleaner than typical cars.
And it will, unless it is flashed to not do so. The whole "cheat" that they did was to exactly meet or surpass the criteria of the emissions test, but to turn off the function in real world driving, thus providing more performance, longer lasting engine and better gas mileage. They also met the letter of the law, but the outcry is over the fact that the spirit of the law as interpreted by some has been violated.
They are definitely guilty of something. It just might not be a criminal offense. Just like how speeding tickets are not criminal offenses. That doesn't mean they are not guilty of breaking any laws.
They are guilty of meeting the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.
I think you don't know how the legal system works. Prosecutors file an arm long list of plausible charges, hoping than one or two will stick...
Unfortunately, that is quite true. And that is definitely not the way that a legal system should work.