Because not all areas screwed up something as simple as regulating the taxi market? Uber might have worked wonders where you are, but in some other countries Taxi services have been great. Where Uber's business model might improve your taxi service, for great swathes of the world Uber's standards are lowering the taxi service.
Some parts of the world figured out taxi services. Yours didn't, apparently.
That might be the case where you are, but many countries have functioning taxi industries which are not monopolised, provide good service, and are safe. Uber entering those markets would decrease service, not increase it.
It's clearly a bit more than "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" - indeed, if you think that is accurate you really haven't been paying attention - it's ignoring some very basic laws in the areas it's attempting to operate, and that's where the problem is. I guess someone pretending to be a doctor and selling Draino as a health tonic is just engaging in "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" and should be left alone...
If the car doesn't have commercial insurance and crashes, then everyone suffers as the car is not insured. Everyone has to pick up a piece of the damage caused by someone valuing the bottom line over obvious safety. Taxis in Germany are usually excellent. They are well-maintained, the drivers are well trained, and know where you want to go.
Stop thinking the rest of the world is as broken as where you are from. It's not.
They do need those in Germany, however. I hate to break it to you, but other countries have figured out how to have a functioning taxi service, and while Uber might be a massive step forward where you live, in other places it is a dangerous step backwards.
China is reducing their CO2 output, or at least are doing their best to. Any problems encountered in that task will not be down to China not wanting to reduce CO2 emissions. Flat out denying that is happening doesn't paint the rest of your comment in the best of lights, as clearly you've not been paying too much attention to this.
You don't summarily shoot murderers and rapists, you do what you have to do to stop them and nothing more. Your rhetoric sounds lazy, trite, and abjectly childish.
Sure reality does, if you only discuss the parts of reality which agree with you. You are refusing to acknowledge the crippling requirements of the USPS, instead complaining that they "should be held to a higher standard", without ever bothering to declare what that higher standard is. It seems this "higher standard" you mention is precisely the standard USPS is being forced to adopt (funding pensions for people who haven't been born yet, etc.), which is suspiciously highly convenient for your argument...
Apart from when they were used in the North Hollywood shootout to great effect, causing the cops to need to get some assault rifles to take the robbers on.
You not knowing about something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't confuse hubris with knowledge.
Your claim about the superiority of the US legal system is completely unfounded - can you cite some sources agreeing with you? Preferably objective comparisons...
There is no scientific definition of "race", so its definitions are rather vague. It can include a group of people who share a similar culture, tradition or behaviour, which definitely suits defining adherents of a certain religion as a race.
And if the connection is MitMd to forge the version response, the download of a new binary over HTTP can also be forged, resulting in something clearly undesirable.
It's worth precisely nothing as two wrongs still don't make a right. Why we feel it perfectly OK to forgive such childish attitudes in governments is staggering.
It sounds like you're a cupcake yourself, seeing as you are the one complaining about the actions of others which in no way impact your life beyond how much you let them... Will you be OK?
No. Your strange fantasies about "ghettos" have no bearing on the matter at all. Intelligence gathering the old fashioned way is becoming more and more rare because it's expensive and difficult to perform. It yields the best intelligence by far - like, actual real, useful intelligence, but it appears we've settled for less useful intelligence at a greater cost to society, but with a smaller budget for the departments footing the bill. Yay us?
The out-of-pocket difference between using and not using healthcare is 0. That's what's commonly understood by "free healthcare" - it doesn't cost you anything when you need it, and the rest of the time it is payed for by everyone pooling together, which results in lower costs across the board.
You're the guy who couldn't figure out the difference between land and sea ice. I don't think you should be entering into this discussion without at least understanding the topic at hand. It's patently clear you are arguing from either a lack of understanding, your wishes, or a combination of both.
Slashdot Mirror
Because not all areas screwed up something as simple as regulating the taxi market? Uber might have worked wonders where you are, but in some other countries Taxi services have been great. Where Uber's business model might improve your taxi service, for great swathes of the world Uber's standards are lowering the taxi service.
Some parts of the world figured out taxi services. Yours didn't, apparently.
That might be the case where you are, but many countries have functioning taxi industries which are not monopolised, provide good service, and are safe. Uber entering those markets would decrease service, not increase it.
It's clearly a bit more than "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" - indeed, if you think that is accurate you really haven't been paying attention - it's ignoring some very basic laws in the areas it's attempting to operate, and that's where the problem is. I guess someone pretending to be a doctor and selling Draino as a health tonic is just engaging in "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" and should be left alone...
If the car doesn't have commercial insurance and crashes, then everyone suffers as the car is not insured. Everyone has to pick up a piece of the damage caused by someone valuing the bottom line over obvious safety. Taxis in Germany are usually excellent. They are well-maintained, the drivers are well trained, and know where you want to go.
Stop thinking the rest of the world is as broken as where you are from. It's not.
They do need those in Germany, however. I hate to break it to you, but other countries have figured out how to have a functioning taxi service, and while Uber might be a massive step forward where you live, in other places it is a dangerous step backwards.
Well done! You've earned a cookie!
China is reducing their CO2 output, or at least are doing their best to. Any problems encountered in that task will not be down to China not wanting to reduce CO2 emissions. Flat out denying that is happening doesn't paint the rest of your comment in the best of lights, as clearly you've not been paying too much attention to this.
The parliament has the final say on who will be part of the commission, so it's not quite as you say...
They don't. You just have a confirmation bias.
You don't summarily shoot murderers and rapists, you do what you have to do to stop them and nothing more. Your rhetoric sounds lazy, trite, and abjectly childish.
Sure reality does, if you only discuss the parts of reality which agree with you. You are refusing to acknowledge the crippling requirements of the USPS, instead complaining that they "should be held to a higher standard", without ever bothering to declare what that higher standard is. It seems this "higher standard" you mention is precisely the standard USPS is being forced to adopt (funding pensions for people who haven't been born yet, etc.), which is suspiciously highly convenient for your argument...
Apart from when they were used in the North Hollywood shootout to great effect, causing the cops to need to get some assault rifles to take the robbers on.
You not knowing about something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't confuse hubris with knowledge.
Nothing new apart from that this hasn't been done before...
That seems needlessly sexist. I'm sure you were trying to make a point, but you seemed to have forgotten to do so entirely.
Your claim about the superiority of the US legal system is completely unfounded - can you cite some sources agreeing with you? Preferably objective comparisons...
Is it because they are women or because women's fashion increases the chance of unsuitable footwear? Let's not jump to some half-baked conclusions...
There is no scientific definition of "race", so its definitions are rather vague. It can include a group of people who share a similar culture, tradition or behaviour, which definitely suits defining adherents of a certain religion as a race.
So yeah. The dictionary is your friend.
And if the connection is MitMd to forge the version response, the download of a new binary over HTTP can also be forged, resulting in something clearly undesirable.
It's worth precisely nothing as two wrongs still don't make a right. Why we feel it perfectly OK to forgive such childish attitudes in governments is staggering.
"Could" does not mean "did". I know you have a problem with rational thought (hence your religiosity), but you can clearly do better.
In (most) first world countries healthcare is already taken into consideration, so that's not a problem.
It sounds like you're a cupcake yourself, seeing as you are the one complaining about the actions of others which in no way impact your life beyond how much you let them... Will you be OK?
No. Your strange fantasies about "ghettos" have no bearing on the matter at all. Intelligence gathering the old fashioned way is becoming more and more rare because it's expensive and difficult to perform. It yields the best intelligence by far - like, actual real, useful intelligence, but it appears we've settled for less useful intelligence at a greater cost to society, but with a smaller budget for the departments footing the bill. Yay us?
So you really don't understand this at all, but like to sling mud at certain names you don't like. Cheers.
The out-of-pocket difference between using and not using healthcare is 0. That's what's commonly understood by "free healthcare" - it doesn't cost you anything when you need it, and the rest of the time it is payed for by everyone pooling together, which results in lower costs across the board.
You're the guy who couldn't figure out the difference between land and sea ice. I don't think you should be entering into this discussion without at least understanding the topic at hand. It's patently clear you are arguing from either a lack of understanding, your wishes, or a combination of both.