The only site that is available to many people. The only other available source would be PR stuff from that very school.
Trying to cross check the promises in some school leafl3eats using a usually trustworthy (and the only available) source isn't a masterpiece, but within the available means, "due diligence"
So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.
1st That call wouldn't be anonymous. 2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.
it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.
Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.
But other countries pay for their oil, too. The oil money won't be instantly down to zero. Yes, they would have to cut back, but people won't revolt that quickly if they build less skyscrapers.
Here comes into play what the other commenter replied: The US is a net energy exporter, Saudi Arabia doesn't have to supply ALL the oil needed there. Gas prices still would go up a lot, but gas stations wouldn't run dry.
I had a chance to actually use uber, so excuse me and please correct me if I get this wrong, but I was under the impression that the uber fare is based on the distance between start and destination as determined by a routing software and not on the detours the driver decides to take?
So how could the driver fleece the passenger here?
In theory I agree with your first paragraph. But taxi drivers worldwide made a sport out of fleecing tourists.
And for the second statement: I understood that when you order a uber car using the app, you give your destination and the fare is calculated based on the optimum* route. And that fare is fixed no matter how often he is driving you around the same circle. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Never had a chance to actually try uber
*or at least the one any other routing service would suggest you, too
But it seems that these are - despite their price - create the most profit, or else taxi companies wouldn't buy them.
Say, for example, I was a young guy who wants to start a one-man taxi business in New York. For some reason my bank ok'ed that. How much would I have to invest for the licence alone? Have I have to pay that as a lump sum so that I need to bill it as an actual, deductible investment (and costs me additional intrest as I probably need my bank to back it with a credit) or is it some monthly amount that hast to come from the monthly earnings?
Or put simply, they're only cheaper because they've either shifted costs onto the workers or simply avoided them entirely.
Which in itself isn't evil or anything. They pass along most of the fare to the driver in return, too. So this could be a win-win situation.
Yes the drivers are a lot nicer, because they aren't jaded from years of driving unreasonable assholes around all the time. Give it a few years. But who knows, maybe they can avoid that by pissing on their drivers enough to keep the Churn Rate high
I don't think you're supposed to be a uber driver for years. But it may be a an option to use your existing car to pay for the next credit installment on the very same car while you're between jobs for a few months. The actual new thing compared to taxi is that there is hardly a need to any up front investments as existing car and phone can be used.
That price is for a business medallion is purchased by a company that runs the car 24 hours a day in 3 shifts bringing in $300,000 / yr. or more.
So that's exactly the point: Current rules and regulations are tailored to support those big taxi companies in raking in "$300,000/yr or more" and it's neither the drivers nor the passengers who are protected by those regulations. It's those companies that are in fear of competition.
On the other hand the Uber model guarantees that both parties are equipped with a device that works as GPS using recent (online) maps. If the driver "gets lots2 or "decides to show the passenger the scenic route" - he can't charge the passenger for that. So that type of scam is indeed left to professionals.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.
That pretty much sums it up.
But the example that taxis have to accept every ride is correct. Taxis are seen as part of public transport and therefore heavily regulated. But as if this wasn't complicated enough, these regulations differ on a county level. I've been to areas that got completely rid of taxis but have taxi-like services (which of course can't be called taxi) instead. Unlike Taxis, they don't have city or county mandated prices. If a city or county (or state) is responsible for what part of taxi fees, differs from state to state.
I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.
But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details here.
When I mentioned that this could lead to a situation where less rules could lead to a bit less freedom in the end may be partly bias partly gut feeling, but without a well defined framework, there is always the chance that some lawyer finds a way to convince a court why exactly your speech wasn't protected by free speech and you're to pay huge damages. This risk (Or some lawyer threatening with it - we're still talking about fringe cases...) might make people not use their right to speak freely.
On the other side, given definition of what is included by "free speech" and what not is simpler and eliminates surprising court rulings. It's easier for everyone to know how free speech works and claim that right because the limits define also what is inside the limit and therefore definitly protected.
For that to work, of course, the limiting laws themselves have to be insides the limits of a constitution that deserves the word "democratic". Without that limit, my line of reasoning may be used as an excuse for every dictator to kill fredom of speech.
Even more so. How to handle conflicting rights granted by the constitution is also part of the constitution. (And I met people here who consider that as limitation) but it's more straight forward than this absolut sounding "shall pass no law to restrict" while the restrictions are there anyway.
This video was banned from Youtube for "encouraging bullying". When you're claiming presentation of evidence is encouraging the crime you've gone one step too far.
I agree that it isn't specifically "encouraging", but if it's evidence, it belongs onto a police or court file, not youtube.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at a globe. You have a rather convinient place to bridge the pacific between Alaska and Russia, Atlantic is a bit broader.
Train... car.. what's the difference?
At least compared to the main competition of planes and ships.
Read the summary:
The only site that is available to many people. The only other available source would be PR stuff from that very school.
Trying to cross check the promises in some school leafl3eats using a usually trustworthy (and the only available) source isn't a masterpiece, but within the available means, "due diligence"
American Drivers licence or other Photo ID?
So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.
1st That call wouldn't be anonymous.
2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.
it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.
Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.
But other countries pay for their oil, too. The oil money won't be instantly down to zero. Yes, they would have to cut back, but people won't revolt that quickly if they build less skyscrapers.
Here comes into play what the other commenter replied: The US is a net energy exporter, Saudi Arabia doesn't have to supply ALL the oil needed there. Gas prices still would go up a lot, but gas stations wouldn't run dry.
Which would actually be a wise reaction compared to the knee-jerk reactions Joe Sixpack would come along with.
Maybe. But "energy" in general won't help you if you need to run combustion engines.
Being pissed off when you find out that some (supposedly friendly!) foreign agency is spying on you is not hipocrisy. It's a perfect normal reaction.
On the other hand, it's hipocrisy not to relize that exactly is their job.
or how would you think America would react if the BND started wiretapping Obamas calls? Not amused. I'd guess.
How much are you willing to pay for gas?
I bet the middle east could survice longer on the money they already have that the US could without oil from there.
You don't have to go as far as to make that a matter of trust.
If ANY country's 3-letter-agencies are looking out for you, you don't want to be in any country that has a visa waiver program with the first.
So much for the question if Germany should offer refugee status. He would be stupid to request it here.
Sortof.
I had a chance to actually use uber, so excuse me and please correct me if I get this wrong, but I was under the impression that the uber fare is based on the distance between start and destination as determined by a routing software and not on the detours the driver decides to take?
So how could the driver fleece the passenger here?
Agreed. But would those people spend money on a taxi?
In theory I agree with your first paragraph. But taxi drivers worldwide made a sport out of fleecing tourists.
And for the second statement: I understood that when you order a uber car using the app, you give your destination and the fare is calculated based on the optimum* route. And that fare is fixed no matter how often he is driving you around the same circle. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Never had a chance to actually try uber
*or at least the one any other routing service would suggest you, too
But it seems that these are - despite their price - create the most profit, or else taxi companies wouldn't buy them.
Say, for example, I was a young guy who wants to start a one-man taxi business in New York. For some reason my bank ok'ed that. How much would I have to invest for the licence alone? Have I have to pay that as a lump sum so that I need to bill it as an actual, deductible investment (and costs me additional intrest as I probably need my bank to back it with a credit) or is it some monthly amount that hast to come from the monthly earnings?
Or put simply, they're only cheaper because they've either shifted costs onto the workers or simply avoided them entirely.
Which in itself isn't evil or anything. They pass along most of the fare to the driver in return, too. So this could be a win-win situation.
Yes the drivers are a lot nicer, because they aren't jaded from years of driving unreasonable assholes around all the time. Give it a few years. But who knows, maybe they can avoid that by pissing on their drivers enough to keep the Churn Rate high
I don't think you're supposed to be a uber driver for years. But it may be a an option to use your existing car to pay for the next credit installment on the very same car while you're between jobs for a few months. The actual new thing compared to taxi is that there is hardly a need to any up front investments as existing car and phone can be used.
That price is for a business medallion is purchased by a company that runs the car 24 hours a day in 3 shifts bringing in $300,000 / yr. or more.
So that's exactly the point: Current rules and regulations are tailored to support those big taxi companies in raking in "$300,000/yr or more" and it's neither the drivers nor the passengers who are protected by those regulations. It's those companies that are in fear of competition.
On the other hand the Uber model guarantees that both parties are equipped with a device that works as GPS using recent (online) maps. If the driver "gets lots2 or "decides to show the passenger the scenic route" - he can't charge the passenger for that. So that type of scam is indeed left to professionals.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.
That pretty much sums it up.
But the example that taxis have to accept every ride is correct. Taxis are seen as part of public transport and therefore heavily regulated. But as if this wasn't complicated enough, these regulations differ on a county level. I've been to areas that got completely rid of taxis but have taxi-like services (which of course can't be called taxi) instead. Unlike Taxis, they don't have city or county mandated prices. If a city or county (or state) is responsible for what part of taxi fees, differs from state to state.
That's true for the other way round, too. Coming from an area with many Schlösser und Burgen, calling all of them simply "castle" feels wrong.
And for every english student struggling with the 'th', there is a german learner trying to pronounce the 'ch'. :-)
[citation needed]
I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.
But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details here.
When I mentioned that this could lead to a situation where less rules could lead to a bit less freedom in the end may be partly bias partly gut feeling, but without a well defined framework, there is always the chance that some lawyer finds a way to convince a court why exactly your speech wasn't protected by free speech and you're to pay huge damages. This risk (Or some lawyer threatening with it - we're still talking about fringe cases...) might make people not use their right to speak freely.
On the other side, given definition of what is included by "free speech" and what not is simpler and eliminates surprising court rulings. It's easier for everyone to know how free speech works and claim that right because the limits define also what is inside the limit and therefore definitly protected.
For that to work, of course, the limiting laws themselves have to be insides the limits of a constitution that deserves the word "democratic". Without that limit, my line of reasoning may be used as an excuse for every dictator to kill fredom of speech.
Even more so. How to handle conflicting rights granted by the constitution is also part of the constitution. (And I met people here who consider that as limitation) but it's more straight forward than this absolut sounding "shall pass no law to restrict" while the restrictions are there anyway.
This video was banned from Youtube for "encouraging bullying". When you're claiming presentation of evidence is encouraging the crime you've gone one step too far.
I agree that it isn't specifically "encouraging", but if it's evidence, it belongs onto a police or court file, not youtube.