Look beyond your nose at places where it's already done. If "libertarians" had a clue they'd actually be cheering for this because it creates room for minor parties and independents instead of just flipping the Rep/Dem coin.
Apart from when a President dies, such as Truman, LBJ, Ford and where a President is weak so someone like Cheney actually has a say, when has that ever mattered? What did Agnew and Quayle do of any consequence?
In Australia when people don't turn up to vote and can't justify it there is a small fine, but it's rarely applied. There's a religious group (they call themselves that anyway) called "the exclusive bretheren" who refuse to let their members vote and none of them have been fined. You can have mandatory voting without the threat of prison time and there's plenty of places where that is practiced.
As for your second point, ironically getting more people off their arses and into polling booths is a good way to remove people in government who are on the take. People who don't give a shit about political ideology are still likely to get pissed off by corrupt bastards and if they can actually do something about it by ticking a box in secret they can do so.
It's a duty of being a citizen where a government is elected by the citizens. Turning up and scrawling on a bit of paper "you're all evil bastards", or leaving it blank, is good enough if you don't think anyone is worth voting for. It still sends a message and may make someone try harder. IMHO getting more people off their arses to at least turn up will provide room for minor parties that may actually engage with the population more than with political donors - so you guys may start to get back the USA you want instead of the one you complain about as if you are not part of the process.
Yes I know there are electoral colleges, voting on a Tuesday, hanging fucking chads, possibly rigged machines and all kinds of other barriers, but they can be dealt with.
was your insistence that the situation in NYC is somehow the standard for all taxi services in the world
I wasn't thinking of NYC but if you look around you'll see a great many have exactly the problem I described even if they are not as extreme as your strawman. The cap on numbers is more the case than not in large cities.
If they didn't have Aldrin on board with a slide rule and his vivid memory of his thesis on orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652) then it's very likely that they wouldn't have made it back when the computer on Eagle failed. That's just an example of a component failure that was prevented from causing a mission failure.
MSDOS was initially a cutdown CP/M workalike Bill saw running and bought (eventually) so that's playing it about as safe as you can get. Google was initially the science citation index ranking (not that the kids would remember such a thing on microphish) applied to web pages so not a huge leap in the dark either, even if it was a bit of a surprise to just about everyone.
Both are a deliberate barrier to entry. In some cases a very expensive one to prevent owner drivers from operating. In others a hard limit to stop new players even if they had the capital to set up a rival taxi company without buying out part of the existing ones.
If they are expensive, they are because no new licenses are given and you have to purchase one from someone who already holds one - and that can get expensive.
See also donations from taxi companies who do not wish competition due to a flood of new licences as a revenue stream. Hence the insistence on a cap instead of just issuing to anyone that meets a requirement. I don't know why I had to spell that out, it should be very obvious that is a very large part of the issue with government mandated monopolies.
Uber may be utter pricks, but that's not really relevant because it's not why they are locked out and it's not just them that are being locked out. Others that can meet the safety standards are locked out due to a cap on a closed market.
The local government in that situation has a revenue stream of selling the right to operate a taxi service and that revenue stream is being threatened, hence the reaction. In the English speaking world that model of rights for revenue is as old as King John if not older, it's probably a similar vintage in Germany.
I'll restate my point in a different way - a small startup is going to be spread thin if they have multiple engines while an established org may already have had them for years.
I suggest you at least find out at least the nature of what is being discussed before posting. The procedures are far more invasive and far more prone to infection.
A massively lower death rate for one difference. I don't disagree with your conclusion but you don't get to make up your own "facts" when reality doesn't fit.
Even worse, taking a look at an iPhone6 I have no desire to replace my Nokia N900 with it. More shiny but less features than a phone that's over 5 years old.
That's because they are a little startup without the resources to deal with such complexity and not a very large org that already has experience using that fuel. Yes hydrogen has many issues, like the embrittlement problem that's been known about and dealt with since the 1940s, but it's a tradeoff that some can do already but is uneconomic for others to go near.
The government should keep it's dirty claws out of profit and let private enterprise work without having an 800lb gorilla breathing down it's neck. We want people who understand a market selling products, not a horse judge who happened to sleep in the same room as someone who later became a powerful government figure. A government's role is to act for citizens when they are taken advantage of, not to fleece them for profit with no alternative. See state owned power utilities regulated by the state that owns them for an example - eg. price rises of around 500% over 8 years and no alternative other than putting a solar panel on your roof.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but it sucks if it hits an aquifer that people are drinking out of.
An obsession with kicking a round ball around to the point of being really good at it?
Look beyond your nose at places where it's already done. If "libertarians" had a clue they'd actually be cheering for this because it creates room for minor parties and independents instead of just flipping the Rep/Dem coin.
Apart from when a President dies, such as Truman, LBJ, Ford and where a President is weak so someone like Cheney actually has a say, when has that ever mattered? What did Agnew and Quayle do of any consequence?
In Australia when people don't turn up to vote and can't justify it there is a small fine, but it's rarely applied. There's a religious group (they call themselves that anyway) called "the exclusive bretheren" who refuse to let their members vote and none of them have been fined.
You can have mandatory voting without the threat of prison time and there's plenty of places where that is practiced.
As for your second point, ironically getting more people off their arses and into polling booths is a good way to remove people in government who are on the take. People who don't give a shit about political ideology are still likely to get pissed off by corrupt bastards and if they can actually do something about it by ticking a box in secret they can do so.
Isn't that obvious in a secret ballot context?
It's a duty of being a citizen where a government is elected by the citizens. Turning up and scrawling on a bit of paper "you're all evil bastards", or leaving it blank, is good enough if you don't think anyone is worth voting for. It still sends a message and may make someone try harder.
IMHO getting more people off their arses to at least turn up will provide room for minor parties that may actually engage with the population more than with political donors - so you guys may start to get back the USA you want instead of the one you complain about as if you are not part of the process.
Yes I know there are electoral colleges, voting on a Tuesday, hanging fucking chads, possibly rigged machines and all kinds of other barriers, but they can be dealt with.
I wasn't thinking of NYC but if you look around you'll see a great many have exactly the problem I described even if they are not as extreme as your strawman.
The cap on numbers is more the case than not in large cities.
If they didn't have Aldrin on board with a slide rule and his vivid memory of his thesis on orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652) then it's very likely that they wouldn't have made it back when the computer on Eagle failed.
That's just an example of a component failure that was prevented from causing a mission failure.
MSDOS was initially a cutdown CP/M workalike Bill saw running and bought (eventually) so that's playing it about as safe as you can get.
Google was initially the science citation index ranking (not that the kids would remember such a thing on microphish) applied to web pages so not a huge leap in the dark either, even if it was a bit of a surprise to just about everyone.
Both are a deliberate barrier to entry. In some cases a very expensive one to prevent owner drivers from operating. In others a hard limit to stop new players even if they had the capital to set up a rival taxi company without buying out part of the existing ones.
See also donations from taxi companies who do not wish competition due to a flood of new licences as a revenue stream. Hence the insistence on a cap instead of just issuing to anyone that meets a requirement.
I don't know why I had to spell that out, it should be very obvious that is a very large part of the issue with government mandated monopolies.
Uber may be utter pricks, but that's not really relevant because it's not why they are locked out and it's not just them that are being locked out. Others that can meet the safety standards are locked out due to a cap on a closed market.
The local government in that situation has a revenue stream of selling the right to operate a taxi service and that revenue stream is being threatened, hence the reaction.
In the English speaking world that model of rights for revenue is as old as King John if not older, it's probably a similar vintage in Germany.
IBM Model M keyboards last BUT THEY ARE VERY NOISY.
Take your strawman construction somewhere else. Arguing that death is worse than disfigurement is not advocating disfigurement.
I'll restate my point in a different way - a small startup is going to be spread thin if they have multiple engines while an established org may already have had them for years.
All this swiping, does it come with a giant monkey in a temple?
I suggest you at least find out at least the nature of what is being discussed before posting. The procedures are far more invasive and far more prone to infection.
A massively lower death rate for one difference. I don't disagree with your conclusion but you don't get to make up your own "facts" when reality doesn't fit.
That's mainly because the female kind has a very high death rate.
Even worse, taking a look at an iPhone6 I have no desire to replace my Nokia N900 with it. More shiny but less features than a phone that's over 5 years old.
TV tuner cards have been available for ages but hardly anyone bothers to put one in a PC.
A silverfish?
That's because they are a little startup without the resources to deal with such complexity and not a very large org that already has experience using that fuel.
Yes hydrogen has many issues, like the embrittlement problem that's been known about and dealt with since the 1940s, but it's a tradeoff that some can do already but is uneconomic for others to go near.
The government should keep it's dirty claws out of profit and let private enterprise work without having an 800lb gorilla breathing down it's neck. We want people who understand a market selling products, not a horse judge who happened to sleep in the same room as someone who later became a powerful government figure.
A government's role is to act for citizens when they are taken advantage of, not to fleece them for profit with no alternative.
See state owned power utilities regulated by the state that owns them for an example - eg. price rises of around 500% over 8 years and no alternative other than putting a solar panel on your roof.