"It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost." Yes it is. That's the whole point.
I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick.
No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers.
Yes they do. For example London. However London also has the quite separate "private hire car" category, who are not entitled to pick up hailing customers from the street or use taxi ranks. That's the group Uber operate in there. Paying the appropriate fees.
That's the issue. Uber operate quite legally, within the system, where their system is permitted. ANd they use civil disobedience where it isn't.
"New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
That's not true. Taxi legislation often specifies how the taxi service is operated, such that specific taximeters and manufacturers/service companies are mandatory.
Solution? Either make this startup pay for tokens and get insurance for them and do everything YOU have to do, or have the token system abolished and make it so you don't have to have insurance to work AND make the startup compensate you by refunding your token for you as a requirement to enter the market and compete with you.
No, that's a false dichotomy. You can change the law so that mobile phone driven taxis are legal within the system, whilst still leaving the system restricted to badge owners. That's exactly how Uber operate where I am. Perfectly legally, because there is a category of licensed hire cars that doesn't exclude their technology.
That some people want to make the idiotic claims that laws are hurting innovation, or that regulating an industry is some fucking grand conspiracy to keep taxi owners rich... saying it doesn't make it true. It's still batshit crazy stuff which has nothing to do with reality, other than indicating you desperately wish reality adhered to your crazy beliefs.
You believe that mobile phone operated and called computer systems don't exist? Or that there aren't laws in certain countries/cities that ban them? Or that there's no reason not to have outdated taxi systems that don't serve the public as well, or what? What is it you are claiming is bat-shit crazy, and has no reality?
Perhaps you should calm down and think about the topic before you post again.
Do you know how stupid that sounds? "I'm OK with taxi regulation as long as they drop them for Uber".
What you said sounds stupid, but it's not remotely what I said, nor anything close to the meaning of what I said. AKA a strawman.
This isn't a legislation problem. This is a problem of the world not suddenly bowing to the will of a fucking tech company who thinks a mobile phone app is magic and that laws should be changed to accommodate them.
It's not just the companies (plural) that want this, but the passengers. And the drivers for that matter. In fact there's no one that's not served by it, other than those holding badges for 20th century taxi technology.
And impounding Uber drivers' cars and fining them is a legitimate way to say "we don't give a fuck that you think the law shouldn't apply to you.
Absolutely. A key part of civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to accept the penalty, until you win through.
Uber is a greedy (fucking) technology company
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not interested in what companies you're a fanboi of and which you're a h8er. I'm interested in rational discussion of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Seems to me the answer to this abuse is to make badges non-transferable and apply to the driver. When a driver retires, dies or stops paying his dues, then a new badge becomes available from the licensing authority.
Because there's no reason in the 21st century that mobile phone operated systems, that work for everyone, shouldn't be allowed. Not that Uber should get unique treatment for their company, but the laws should change such that such systems are allowed.
If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair. of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost. Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
I think the reality is somewhere between the two. It's nuanced. Few things are black and white.
There is a value to regulated taxis. I support them. But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem. And civil disobedience is a legitimate way to highlight bad law.
No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition.
That's simply and easily verifiably not true, in that I am an example of the public, and I value regulated taxis over unregulated ones. For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers etc. And there's plenty more like me. I suggest more than agree with you.
Well it kind of does. In that the passenger knows in advance they are looking for a car with an Uber sign, and they have been allocated one in advance by the system. Other drivers might try to steal the fare, but at least the passenger knows better where they stand, and know what to head for if they want the prearranged price.
That's not the same crowd that rides Uber or taxis; and those people are happy that they get cheap transportation at all. If you regulate away their overcrowded minibus, they have a big problem.
Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.
Possibilities: 1) The examples are in different places. They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis. 2) The "fares" are different people. A tourist is going to be very desirable and a local commuter very undesirable, as in an unregulated city, the taxis can charge what they can get away with. Which is a hell of a lot more with a rich tourist than a local.
Keep looking. Slashdot is an old design, most links you click on are not underlined.
And there's no real difference between a "link" and a "button" or an "icon". They are all just clickable targets that do something.
That "latest craze" you refer to has been with us a long time. The underlined links and button web you are imagining was the web in it's infancy in the 1990s. Thank god those days are gone. http://www.computerhistory.org... And note in that picture, even then only some links were underlined. And some functions have both buttons and links to them. But the worst sin is how ugly it was. Only one site, but an important one of the time, and most were far worse!
Animation can provide feedback, confirmation, notification and/or delight. All of which are worthwhile in their place.
Talk of too much animation is pointless unless you are specific. You don't improve a UI by simply making it less animated any more than you improve a UI by simply removing elements. Every detail needs consideration. As does the question of whether UI should be added in order to make another UI item optional.
I agree that context matters, and they have gone too far in some things. For example the hiding of scroll bars isn't useful. But generally the more to remove unnecessary chrome is good. Whilst the move to blurry translucency is pointless and bad.
XCode: Did you miss the word SHOW? Like in source browsers.
On the animation front, I note that in Snow Leopard, the menu bar time machine icon animates when active, but in Yosemite it has an unanimated state to show it's active. I'm not sure what these superfluous animations you object to are.
There's two different things here. The Amiga's place in the broadcast TV and video effects world was it's features that allowed the graphics card to synchronise to an external vsync, and to generate TV standard signals, such that mixing live video signals and computer graphics was trivial.
Separate to that was the ability to render complex 3D scenes, usually not in real time. For that, you needed (at that time) the most powerful CPU and FPU.
Presumably for the most part Babylon 5 needed the latter, not the former.
Re:If I use an IDE, does it mean I'm a bad program
on
Choosing the Right IDE
·
· Score: 1
Nope. It was the answer to the question "If I use an IDE, does it mean I'm a bad programmer". Implicit in the question is whether that particular tool makes him a bad programmer. Everything else is out of context (context, something you'd understand if you were a programmer). Returning the answer in the same framing (context) means that that particular tool makes him more productive.
Everyone else got it. Hence the +5 Insightful. And hence your downmods.
Now, are you going to continue being an ignorant arsehole?
Slashdot Mirror
What's not cheap about busses?
"It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost."
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick.
No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers.
Yes they do. For example London. However London also has the quite separate "private hire car" category, who are not entitled to pick up hailing customers from the street or use taxi ranks. That's the group Uber operate in there. Paying the appropriate fees.
That's the issue. Uber operate quite legally, within the system, where their system is permitted. ANd they use civil disobedience where it isn't.
It's not about refusing to pay for badges.
"New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
That's not true. Taxi legislation often specifies how the taxi service is operated, such that specific taximeters and manufacturers/service companies are mandatory.
Good.
Solution? Either make this startup pay for tokens and get insurance for them and do everything YOU have to do, or have the token system abolished and make it so you don't have to have insurance to work AND make the startup compensate you by refunding your token for you as a requirement to enter the market and compete with you.
No, that's a false dichotomy. You can change the law so that mobile phone driven taxis are legal within the system, whilst still leaving the system restricted to badge owners. That's exactly how Uber operate where I am. Perfectly legally, because there is a category of licensed hire cars that doesn't exclude their technology.
Yes, they are a country, and it would be utterly wrong to take away their rights to legislate via TTIP.
On the other hand, civil disobedience is a valid way of protesting bad law.
That some people want to make the idiotic claims that laws are hurting innovation, or that regulating an industry is some fucking grand conspiracy to keep taxi owners rich ... saying it doesn't make it true. It's still batshit crazy stuff which has nothing to do with reality, other than indicating you desperately wish reality adhered to your crazy beliefs.
You believe that mobile phone operated and called computer systems don't exist? Or that there aren't laws in certain countries/cities that ban them? Or that there's no reason not to have outdated taxi systems that don't serve the public as well, or what? What is it you are claiming is bat-shit crazy, and has no reality?
Perhaps you should calm down and think about the topic before you post again.
Oddly enough, it looks like you're the one throwing a tantrum with that post.
Do you know how stupid that sounds?
"I'm OK with taxi regulation as long as they drop them for Uber".
What you said sounds stupid, but it's not remotely what I said, nor anything close to the meaning of what I said. AKA a strawman.
This isn't a legislation problem. This is a problem of the world not suddenly bowing to the will of a fucking tech company who thinks a mobile phone app is magic and that laws should be changed to accommodate them.
It's not just the companies (plural) that want this, but the passengers. And the drivers for that matter. In fact there's no one that's not served by it, other than those holding badges for 20th century taxi technology.
And impounding Uber drivers' cars and fining them is a legitimate way to say "we don't give a fuck that you think the law shouldn't apply to you.
Absolutely. A key part of civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to accept the penalty, until you win through.
Uber is a greedy (fucking) technology company
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not interested in what companies you're a fanboi of and which you're a h8er. I'm interested in rational discussion of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Seems to me the answer to this abuse is to make badges non-transferable and apply to the driver. When a driver retires, dies or stops paying his dues, then a new badge becomes available from the licensing authority.
And the best people to operate bus systems are the state.
Why should Uber get special treatment?
Because there's no reason in the 21st century that mobile phone operated systems, that work for everyone, shouldn't be allowed.
Not that Uber should get unique treatment for their company, but the laws should change such that such systems are allowed.
If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost. Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
I think the reality is somewhere between the two. It's nuanced. Few things are black and white.
There is a value to regulated taxis. I support them. But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem. And civil disobedience is a legitimate way to highlight bad law.
No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition.
That's simply and easily verifiably not true, in that I am an example of the public, and I value regulated taxis over unregulated ones. For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers etc. And there's plenty more like me. I suggest more than agree with you.
Lucky, then, that Uber addresses that issue.
Well it kind of does. In that the passenger knows in advance they are looking for a car with an Uber sign, and they have been allocated one in advance by the system. Other drivers might try to steal the fare, but at least the passenger knows better where they stand, and know what to head for if they want the prearranged price.
That's not the same crowd that rides Uber or taxis; and those people are happy that they get cheap transportation at all. If you regulate away their overcrowded minibus, they have a big problem.
Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.
Possibilities:
1) The examples are in different places. They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
2) The "fares" are different people. A tourist is going to be very desirable and a local commuter very undesirable, as in an unregulated city, the taxis can charge what they can get away with. Which is a hell of a lot more with a rich tourist than a local.
Keep looking. Slashdot is an old design, most links you click on are not underlined.
And there's no real difference between a "link" and a "button" or an "icon". They are all just clickable targets that do something.
That "latest craze" you refer to has been with us a long time. The underlined links and button web you are imagining was the web in it's infancy in the 1990s. Thank god those days are gone.
http://www.computerhistory.org...
And note in that picture, even then only some links were underlined. And some functions have both buttons and links to them.
But the worst sin is how ugly it was.
Only one site, but an important one of the time, and most were far worse!
Animation can provide feedback, confirmation, notification and/or delight. All of which are worthwhile in their place.
Talk of too much animation is pointless unless you are specific. You don't improve a UI by simply making it less animated any more than you improve a UI by simply removing elements. Every detail needs consideration. As does the question of whether UI should be added in order to make another UI item optional.
I agree that context matters, and they have gone too far in some things. For example the hiding of scroll bars isn't useful. But generally the more to remove unnecessary chrome is good. Whilst the move to blurry translucency is pointless and bad.
XCode: Did you miss the word SHOW? Like in source browsers.
On the animation front, I note that in Snow Leopard, the menu bar time machine icon animates when active, but in Yosemite it has an unanimated state to show it's active. I'm not sure what these superfluous animations you object to are.
And yet most of the things you click on a web page are not "buttons". But you didn't notice.
* "buttons": icons and/or text in a box, often with pseudo 3D "shadows" to skeuomorphically represent mechanical buttons.
What an imbecile you are.
Now, are you going to continue being an ignorant arsehole?
Now I know I've won :) :) :)
That'd be a yes then.
And still not a single person agrees with you.
There's two different things here. The Amiga's place in the broadcast TV and video effects world was it's features that allowed the graphics card to synchronise to an external vsync, and to generate TV standard signals, such that mixing live video signals and computer graphics was trivial.
Separate to that was the ability to render complex 3D scenes, usually not in real time. For that, you needed (at that time) the most powerful CPU and FPU.
Presumably for the most part Babylon 5 needed the latter, not the former.
Nope. It was the answer to the question "If I use an IDE, does it mean I'm a bad programmer". Implicit in the question is whether that particular tool makes him a bad programmer. Everything else is out of context (context, something you'd understand if you were a programmer). Returning the answer in the same framing (context) means that that particular tool makes him more productive.
Everyone else got it. Hence the +5 Insightful. And hence your downmods.
Now, are you going to continue being an ignorant arsehole?