Exactly the possibility I stated in my last sentence.
Which means this is an investment, not a cost. It wouldn't be worth paying a million dollars for a taxi badge, you would never make a big enough living to to make it worthwhile. But if you can buy one for 1 million dollars, use it for a couple of decades, then sell it for 1.5 million dollars, then you've profited in two ways.
It's certainly not the local government making money from taxi driver licensing.
Anyone can file a suit about anything. That one was filed in January 2011. Now where's the result? Ah yes, it went nowhere.
"In January this year a 26-year-old pimp from Portland, Oreogan sued Nike for £60million claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.
"Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Nike Air Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon.
"He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a man who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardyâ(TM)s prostitute in June 2012.
"In 2013 he was found him guilty of second-degree assault for using his Jordans to beat the manâ(TM)s face to a pulp.
"The man required stitches and plastic surgery on his nose.
"His mammoth sentence also includes time for beating a 18-year-old woman he forced to work as a prostitute so badly she bled from her ears."
That sounds like secondary picketing. Which is illegal. What the taxi drivers did was: a) Demonstrating, not picketing. b) Where they work. Not in a secondary place.
A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000
Where does a license cost that much?
There may be a secondary market for licenses, where numbers are limited, but that's not money going to to the local government, it's money going to retiring taxi drivers.
Thankfully in Britain we still live in a democracy, and people are allowed to demonstrate. Demonstrations normally involve disrupting something. Indeed the police knew about the protest and limited it to one hour. Though I don't know whether the Taxi Drivers pushed it for longer.
What you do or believe in the USA is of no significance.
Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.
False, false and false. In London Uber is a Private Hire Car company, obeying all the rules and regulations. The London licensing body has come out and said as much.
It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium.
They will obviously come to an equilibrium regarding the earnings and the number of drivers. But there is no guaranteeing that that equilibrium will actually be good for anyone. That equilibrium may be at the poverty level, which wouldn't be good for drivers. It may be at the level where streets are clogged with taxis, which wouldn't be good for other road users. It may be at a level where it's impossible to get a taxi to certain locations or times of day (The famous "I don't go south of the River".)
The Taxi market is certainly one where the tragedy of the commons MIGHT apply.
No, not really. The article doesn't specify where it's talking about, but I doubt there's anywhere in the world that charges that for a taxi license.
It's possible that the article is referring to the cost of an operators license. The company that runs a fleet of taxis. Or it may be that it's referring to the one off price that one Taxi driver will charge another to take over his license, where the issue of licenses is limited.
I am hardly wholly sympathetic to the taxis; but there is one important aspect that is often elided in the hagiographic "Hail Uber, destroyer of corrupt taxi monopolist cartels!" pieces: In regulated markets, taxi operators are subject to a variety of rules, some of them costly (insurance, metering accuracy consumer protection stuff, getting the much-coveted and supply limited taxi medallion in the first place), that Uber is just too hip and 'disruptive' to bother with.
This story is about European cities, where Uber operates perfectly legally, following the regulations.
It sounds like there are some US cities where Uber are not offering the right people bribes. And so protectionism is working against them. But that's off topic for this story.
The customer DOES want taxis and private hire cars regulated. They want to know that the car is safe, that the driver is qualified and not banned, and hopefully isn't a convicted criminal, that they are covered by insurance, and that they aren't ripped off by the fare.
However that isn't a bar to Uber in Britain who adhere to all the regulations.
Fortunately, or unfortunately you don't need a 'commercial' insurance. A normal one is just fine, Except for trucks I doubt that there something like an 'commercial insurance' even exists.
For Britain, you are most certainly wrong. I suspect for most of the rest of the world you are wrong too.
Uber is a taxi service that uses a different words to describe itself and phone apps instead of a radio dispatch
As far as London is concerned, Uber is a Private Hire service, not a Taxi service. Private hire services have always operated via requests made by customers via the phone or in person at their office. These instructions are then radioed as offers or orders to the Private hire drivers. Which is exactly the business model that Uber follows.
The phone ordering, and the offers/orders to drivers may be done via TCP/IP rather than voice, but that doesn't change the model. Uber ARE obeying the rules.
Black Cab taxis on the other hand are allowed to respond to hails on the street, and pick op at Taxi stands. Those are their advantages, and the reason they get away with charging more.
The Black cabs are angry because Uber are competing more efficiently, such that their unique advantages count for less.
The Black cabs are framing their complaint in terms of a third issue. Black Cabs uniquely use taximeters - the machines that work out the fare, given distance and time, and display it to users. Private Hire cars make their own arrangements with their customers. Either an agreed price before the trip, or something based on the odometer reading. The Black cabs claim that the Uber app is a taximeter. The licensing body agree with Uber that it isn't.
It sounds like there are some cities in America where Uber aren't playing by the rules. But that's not true of London, and probably not for the other European cities that have had demos today either.
Uber are playing by all rules in London. The London licensing body has said as much.
The London Black Cab drivers are angry because the technology allows Private Hire cars such as Uber to compete much better. It's a protectionist complaint.
That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along. I would not go to their destination if I wasn't going there anyway.
I don't know how Uber operates where you are. But in Britain they are not for casual profitable car shares. They have recruited people who drive hire cars for a living. They need to be licensed, but driver and car, in addition to the commercial insurance. So it wouldn't be worth it for the occasional casual to do it.
The fact that commercial vehicles must have said insurance by law doesn't mean it's actually necessary even for them.
Of course it's necessary. If the driver only has non-commercial insurance, then the insurance company won't pay out when they discover that the car was being used for commercial work.
And why is it acceptable that Insurance companies have a two tier system? Because commercial vehicles are used far more than private vehicles, and the carrying of passengers makes for greater liabilities.
(I'll leave aside the question of whether Uber themselves provide insurance, as the issue is whether they are insured, not who purchases the insurance.)
but $270,000 license fees sound more like glorified bribes to prevent competition than something close to a legitimate license fee.
I don't know where the article got that number from. In London, a taxi driver license incurs fees of a few hundred dollars. And a Taxi vehicle license is less than a hundred. Perhaps they are quoting the cost to be a licensed taxi operator (the company that runs many taxis).
(NB: Uniquely, London does require potential Taxi drivers to know all the streets, important locations and routes for central London. A monumental feat of memorisation that generally takes 2-5 years of hard work to complete, buzzing around the city on a scooter. Called "Doing The Knowledge". So it's certainly hard to become a taxi driver there. It's far more of a bar then the costs.)
But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.
That's not true for the countries these demonstrations are in. For example in Britain all Uber drivers and cars are required to be licensed as "Private Hire" drivers and cars (2 separate licenses.) In order to get the private hire car license, you must present the certificate of commercial insurance to the local council.
Uber's competition in Britain at least is completely legitimate. They are obeying the law. And the department that issues licenses for London have come out and said as much.
iBeacons are't "bluetooth in general", they are BLE transmitters.
Certainly you can set your bluetooth to discoverable, and then a bluetooth device at the store could identify it. But that has nothing to do with iBeacons.
The distinction matters as fuzzyfuzzyfungus claimed Apple created iBeacons to track users, and it is the opposite of the truth.
The only people I've met who said you can't write readable assembly haven't much assembly.
You make a mistake. I didn't say you can't write readable assembly. I said you're much more able to construct a readable program with C than assembler. Together with a couple of other similar comparisons.
And every one is true.
Just as it's true that you are much more able to speak beautifully in French than German, and it's much easier to write a pop song in English than French, and iambic pentameter works much better as a metre in English than Japanese.
That's not to say it's impossible to do any of these things in any of the languages. Just that they are easier in some than others.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, what happens in the US is irrelevant.
What the taxi drivers did in London was perfectly acceptable, legal, and even approved by the police (for a limited period.)
An article based on the press release of a an organisation that sued Apple in Germany. Reflecting what they say the result was and meant.
What is the point you are trying to make?
Not only that, but the Black Cabbies encyclopaedic knowledge of streets may not be significantly better than a Sat Nav with traffic info.
Exactly the possibility I stated in my last sentence.
Which means this is an investment, not a cost. It wouldn't be worth paying a million dollars for a taxi badge, you would never make a big enough living to to make it worthwhile. But if you can buy one for 1 million dollars, use it for a couple of decades, then sell it for 1.5 million dollars, then you've profited in two ways.
It's certainly not the local government making money from taxi driver licensing.
Anyone can file a suit about anything. That one was filed in January 2011. Now where's the result? Ah yes, it went nowhere.
"In January this year a 26-year-old pimp from Portland, Oreogan sued Nike for £60million claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.
"Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Nike Air Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon.
"He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a man who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardyâ(TM)s prostitute in June 2012.
"In 2013 he was found him guilty of second-degree assault for using his Jordans to beat the manâ(TM)s face to a pulp.
"The man required stitches and plastic surgery on his nose.
"His mammoth sentence also includes time for beating a 18-year-old woman he forced to work as a prostitute so badly she bled from her ears."
Clearly you believe Nike did something wrong.
That sounds like secondary picketing. Which is illegal. What the taxi drivers did was:
a) Demonstrating, not picketing.
b) Where they work. Not in a secondary place.
A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000
Where does a license cost that much?
There may be a secondary market for licenses, where numbers are limited, but that's not money going to to the local government, it's money going to retiring taxi drivers.
Thankfully in Britain we still live in a democracy, and people are allowed to demonstrate. Demonstrations normally involve disrupting something. Indeed the police knew about the protest and limited it to one hour. Though I don't know whether the Taxi Drivers pushed it for longer.
What you do or believe in the USA is of no significance.
Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.
False, false and false. In London Uber is a Private Hire Car company, obeying all the rules and regulations. The London licensing body has come out and said as much.
It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium.
They will obviously come to an equilibrium regarding the earnings and the number of drivers. But there is no guaranteeing that that equilibrium will actually be good for anyone. That equilibrium may be at the poverty level, which wouldn't be good for drivers. It may be at the level where streets are clogged with taxis, which wouldn't be good for other road users. It may be at a level where it's impossible to get a taxi to certain locations or times of day (The famous "I don't go south of the River".)
The Taxi market is certainly one where the tragedy of the commons MIGHT apply.
No, not really. The article doesn't specify where it's talking about, but I doubt there's anywhere in the world that charges that for a taxi license.
It's possible that the article is referring to the cost of an operators license. The company that runs a fleet of taxis. Or it may be that it's referring to the one off price that one Taxi driver will charge another to take over his license, where the issue of licenses is limited.
I am hardly wholly sympathetic to the taxis; but there is one important aspect that is often elided in the hagiographic "Hail Uber, destroyer of corrupt taxi monopolist cartels!" pieces: In regulated markets, taxi operators are subject to a variety of rules, some of them costly (insurance, metering accuracy consumer protection stuff, getting the much-coveted and supply limited taxi medallion in the first place), that Uber is just too hip and 'disruptive' to bother with.
This story is about European cities, where Uber operates perfectly legally, following the regulations.
It sounds like there are some US cities where Uber are not offering the right people bribes. And so protectionism is working against them. But that's off topic for this story.
The customer DOES want taxis and private hire cars regulated. They want to know that the car is safe, that the driver is qualified and not banned, and hopefully isn't a convicted criminal, that they are covered by insurance, and that they aren't ripped off by the fare.
However that isn't a bar to Uber in Britain who adhere to all the regulations.
Fortunately, or unfortunately you don't need a 'commercial' insurance. A normal one is just fine, Except for trucks I doubt that there something like an 'commercial insurance' even exists.
For Britain, you are most certainly wrong. I suspect for most of the rest of the world you are wrong too.
In what way? Do you have any evidence?
Uber is a taxi service that uses a different words to describe itself and phone apps instead of a radio dispatch
As far as London is concerned, Uber is a Private Hire service, not a Taxi service. Private hire services have always operated via requests made by customers via the phone or in person at their office. These instructions are then radioed as offers or orders to the Private hire drivers. Which is exactly the business model that Uber follows.
The phone ordering, and the offers/orders to drivers may be done via TCP/IP rather than voice, but that doesn't change the model. Uber ARE obeying the rules.
Black Cab taxis on the other hand are allowed to respond to hails on the street, and pick op at Taxi stands. Those are their advantages, and the reason they get away with charging more.
The Black cabs are angry because Uber are competing more efficiently, such that their unique advantages count for less.
The Black cabs are framing their complaint in terms of a third issue. Black Cabs uniquely use taximeters - the machines that work out the fare, given distance and time, and display it to users. Private Hire cars make their own arrangements with their customers. Either an agreed price before the trip, or something based on the odometer reading. The Black cabs claim that the Uber app is a taximeter. The licensing body agree with Uber that it isn't.
It sounds like there are some cities in America where Uber aren't playing by the rules. But that's not true of London, and probably not for the other European cities that have had demos today either.
Uber are playing by all rules in London. The London licensing body has said as much.
The London Black Cab drivers are angry because the technology allows Private Hire cars such as Uber to compete much better. It's a protectionist complaint.
What country/city charges that much? The article doesn't say. Certainly not London.
I suspect they've stupidly quoted the cost for an operators license, i.e. what a company which runs many taxis would pay.
That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along. I would not go to their destination if I wasn't going there anyway.
I don't know how Uber operates where you are. But in Britain they are not for casual profitable car shares. They have recruited people who drive hire cars for a living. They need to be licensed, but driver and car, in addition to the commercial insurance. So it wouldn't be worth it for the occasional casual to do it.
The fact that commercial vehicles must have said insurance by law doesn't mean it's actually necessary even for them.
Of course it's necessary. If the driver only has non-commercial insurance, then the insurance company won't pay out when they discover that the car was being used for commercial work.
And why is it acceptable that Insurance companies have a two tier system? Because commercial vehicles are used far more than private vehicles, and the carrying of passengers makes for greater liabilities.
(I'll leave aside the question of whether Uber themselves provide insurance, as the issue is whether they are insured, not who purchases the insurance.)
but $270,000 license fees sound more like glorified bribes to prevent competition than something close to a legitimate license fee.
I don't know where the article got that number from. In London, a taxi driver license incurs fees of a few hundred dollars. And a Taxi vehicle license is less than a hundred. Perhaps they are quoting the cost to be a licensed taxi operator (the company that runs many taxis).
(NB: Uniquely, London does require potential Taxi drivers to know all the streets, important locations and routes for central London. A monumental feat of memorisation that generally takes 2-5 years of hard work to complete, buzzing around the city on a scooter. Called "Doing The Knowledge". So it's certainly hard to become a taxi driver there. It's far more of a bar then the costs.)
Lawmakers in Britain don't have to do anything, as Uber is already able and does comply with all licensing requirements.
But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.
That's not true for the countries these demonstrations are in. For example in Britain all Uber drivers and cars are required to be licensed as "Private Hire" drivers and cars (2 separate licenses.) In order to get the private hire car license, you must present the certificate of commercial insurance to the local council.
Uber's competition in Britain at least is completely legitimate. They are obeying the law. And the department that issues licenses for London have come out and said as much.
iBeacons are't "bluetooth in general", they are BLE transmitters.
Certainly you can set your bluetooth to discoverable, and then a bluetooth device at the store could identify it. But that has nothing to do with iBeacons.
The distinction matters as fuzzyfuzzyfungus claimed Apple created iBeacons to track users, and it is the opposite of the truth.
The only people I've met who said you can't write readable assembly haven't much assembly.
You make a mistake. I didn't say you can't write readable assembly. I said you're much more able to construct a readable program with C than assembler. Together with a couple of other similar comparisons.
And every one is true.
Just as it's true that you are much more able to speak beautifully in French than German, and it's much easier to write a pop song in English than French, and iambic pentameter works much better as a metre in English than Japanese.
That's not to say it's impossible to do any of these things in any of the languages. Just that they are easier in some than others.
to make their devices useless outside of the living room and coffee shop.
then
that each client has virus-checked each of their IOS
Your snideness and ignorance are noted. Apple knows far more about networking than you do. You're just a sysadmin.