Rugby watchers say the same about American football.
And some of the rules are contradictory and inconsistent. Lying on the ground in basketball? Getting up without moving either foot is "traveling" when you didn't move either foot. But doing the caterpillar while on the ground and moving half the length of the court isn't traveling.
All of sports is arbitrary. Have you seen the rules of basketball? Carry the ball two steps without bouncing, and you're fine. But three steps? That's a penalty.
Not if you are jumping for a dunk. You get 2 steps and a jump, and no limit on the number of steps in a "jump", that's not only arbitrary, but capricious.
cycling, where they have to actually add weight to the bicycles. Consumer bikes go faster than pro ones
That's simply false. You pick the level track, and the person on the 15 lb pro bike will have an advantage over the 10 lb consumer bike. The weight was to prevent the $5,000,000 bike having an advantage over the $20,000 pro bike on climbs and such. There's a point where spending $1,000,000 per gram (of lightness) no longer has anything to do with skill or ability. So minimum weights were set in the days where it was reasonable for a bike set in race trim. That carbon fiber and such made it to sub-$1000 bikes doesn't require a rules change.
But the aerodynamics, geometry and mechanical advantage would still have an athlete with a 10 lb store bike lose to a 15 lb race bike, for anything other than maybe a long climb stage.
Yes it's heaver. Yes it's artificially handicapped. But that doesn't mean that it's actually inferior. That you don't realize this is proof that you don't know what you are talking about for the other items as well. But bikes is something I'm an expert on, so I know you to be wrong there.
Uniformly, they look at the rules and see that someone willing to spend $10B can guarantee a win against a team of lesser means. That's not a "sport" of skill or ability, but a sport of who can spend the most (and game the rules the most).
I can't think of any pro sport that doesn't have equipment rules. Basketball and soccer not only specify the ball quite explicitly, but also the uniforms. Maybe not to the degree of skiing, but both sports have rules on what you can wear to play. So why do you single out skiing? Every sport has rules. Most rules are there to enforce "fair" of one nature or another.
And there are probably many more...
Yeah, every sport. Clubs and balls (and shoes) in golf, disks in disk golf, something in every sport. So to single out a few is silly. "Every single sport in the history of the planet" is a more complete list. I bet you'd get disqualified (and beat up) if you showed up to a kaber toss with a corked kaber.500 years ago.
Even the ancient greek olympic games generally specified the suits allowed. and generally that was "none". If you want a fair contest, you have the gear provided by the meet, and everyone must perform naked. Shoes don't give you an advantage in grip for the long jump or 110m hurdles when you can't wear shoes.
It is certainly true that they are already leading lives different to the average Joe when they can get a life ban from sport for using an over the counter cold treatment that contains a banned substance.
Yeah, and they can get a ban for eating a salad (made of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). Over simplifying the issues and presenting as an absolute with the intention of deceiving is a lie. You are lying. An athelete with a cold can go to a medical doctor, have their symptoms diagnosed, and be issued a prescription for a banned substance, then compete while on that banned substance and test positive for that banned substance, and not have any sanctions taken against them, even if they win (which, is unlikely if they are competing with a bad cold).
Now, if the athlete is sneaking banned substances and breaking the rules by taking it in secret in unknown doses, the sensitive tests that look for it will get a true positive, and without the pre-disclosure and documented treatment regimen, will be assumed to be an abuser.
The system works as intended, and isn't nearly as bad as the abusers claim it is.
Those aren't safe speeders. Those are unsafe assholes who also speed. Note, if you go 55 in a 55 at 2 inches off the bumper of the car in front of you, you'll never be pulled over at a speed trap. The cops are looking for speeders only, and ignore all other infractions. When they stop sleeping in the bushes, waiting for the beep of a car over a certain speed, they might actually look at traffic and pull over those dricing unsafely, whether too slow, or tailgating.
Oh, and nobody can "push" you, unless they commit assault. That you are intimidated by others is a psychological problem with you, not a "push".
Instead of telling me to google it, could you point to a specific study?
4 links, 2 of which Google. The Google links have top results agreeing with me, the TxDOT and USDOT. Your opinion is that everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right, and if I don't adequately support my stance with citations you approve of, you'll dismiss the massive amount of evidence I presented and continue to believe everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right?
As I indicated, a waste of my time. There exists nothing that can change your closed mind. So why should I waste my time trying? That'd make me the fool, to match your troll. Why didn't you click on my second link? https://www.motorists.org/issu... should be what you were looking for, and is only one click off the main page. You can't be bothered to make two clicks to find what you claim to be so desperately looking for, even when pointed to it. And we should bend over backwards to not only give you what you are looking for, but in a manner you wish to receive it. I can think of no explanation other than you are a troll.
So the idea to "Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them" is ridiculous.
So we shouldn't pull them over even when blocking others and in the wrong lane? That's ridiculous. Obviously the "illegally slow" was implied. Most places have laws against slow traffic in one form or another. But the police don't *ever* enforce them. Speeding is easier to catch, even if not any more common. If, rather than focusing on the safe speeders, if the super-slow were targeted, then safety would be improved for all.
And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.
All of those are banned from the interstate. They are limited to slower and smaller roads, ones appropriate to that type of vehicle.
Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.
I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study. That you object to reality will not change it.
Common sense is rarely right when applied to a subject you don't have actual knowledge of. That you think it's a bad idea is proof that you are both ignorant of the topic, and arrogant about your ignorance at the same time. A lethal combination.
I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Where to start? Go to http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS and run 1000 or so search queries on every topic you want. Most of the "studies" are re-statements or analysis of FARS data, as it's one of the most complete databases of its kind in the world (yes, much of the rest of the world builds local law based on US-only data, as it's the best source for the data). Then go to https://www.motorists.org/ and see what they have on how to set a proper speed limit. The NMA will have lots of cites, no need to repeat them all here for someone that's demanding "citation needed" as a dismissive, rather than an honest query. If it was and honest question, why did't you google https://www.google.com/search?... or https://www.google.com/search?... ?
The answer is, you don't actually want an answer, you just want to argue. When the two most obvious search strings I think of give first links to TXDoT and USDOT manuals recomending setting the limit at 85% for optimal safety, why would you question it? Where did you get your traffic engineering degree? TTI, as an engineering extension to Texas A&M is a good place to start.
There, cites, and hundreds of hours of work to educate yourself. Thousands of hours of work if your mind is as closed as it appears.
There are lots of no kill shelters that would survive. They would just do what a full no kill shelter does, and refuse new animals. The no-kills near me cherry pick "adoptable" breeds from the regular shelters and advertise those. They increase the capacity of the kill shelters, but don't offer a different or better service. You should only adopt from a kill shelter, the animal you save is saved. To be "no kill" you must not kill, or release to those who would (directly or indirectly).
Nature doesn't "learn". Nature adapts. Those are different. A river that changes course doesn't have a memory of the old path. It didn't learn a new way. The new way happened, so it took it.
The plural of person is people. There is no other way to word it. That you attach so much emotion and subtext to words doesn't invalidate when someone else uses them correctly, and you don't like the implications. "The people", "humanity", "human kind" and hundreds of other ways can be used to include everyone. What would you have them use for the plural of person? Persons? That's no longer in common usage.
Humans treat people animals poorly, yet PETA doesn't ever speak out on that. Why? Does PETA hate humans? PETA, because "misanthrope" isn't hipster enough.
Is there a location where the camera tickets give points? Where I've seen them used, they are yet another class of crime. Speed tickets used to be actual real crimes. Jury trials and all that. They started as misdemeanors. There was no other legal classification to put them under. Then "infraction" was created. It was a sub-crime that didn't have any of the protections, but had lower damages as well. Then, where speed cameras have been used, I've seen those as a lower crime than the non-crime infringements. You don't get points from a speed camera, so you can get 1000 tickets in a month and not lose your license. They are non-moving violations given to the car, with no proof of driver. If you want to contest because you weren't driving, that argument will only be accepted if you identify the driver. So they ticket the car for moving too fast, not the driver for doing it (unless the driver was not the owner, and the owner gets the ticket re-assigned to a human). For that even lower class of non-crime, they don't use points, as those go to the driver. If they did that, many more people would fight them. And they want the cash, not the hassle.
TFA says the computer is lying about the speeding.
People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.
No, people hate them because they don't work. They don't change behavior. Sending someone a ticket weeks after an event will not work to modify that event. And hiding them to try to catch as many people as possible makes them less of an immediate deterrent as well. Post a "speed camera 50m" sign (as I've seen in some places outside the US) and paint them bright yellow, and you'll do much more to reduce speeding than hidden cameras mailing out tickets long after the event in question.
But they don't want people to change behavior. They only want people to pay the "speed tax" and for that to work, they encourage speeding, while punishing it. That's why people find them frustrating.
If you look at speeding and likelihood of surviving, those speeding are more likely to live. The best result for speed for survival is in the 5-15 mph speeding range. Those going excessively fast are more likely to die if they crash, and have an increasing chance of crashing. And those going 0 mph on an interstate are much much more likely to be in a crash than someone going the speed of traffic.
Those factors combine to a bathtub graph of safety that's centered *above* the speed limit. Generally because the speed limits are set too low, often illegally so. I remember (pre-Internet, so I didn't find a cite, feel free to look it up in a library, none near me carry the Dallas Morning News from the '80s to search) when Dallas set the speed limits on the road so low that they violated state law. Eventually, Dallas changed the limits, after the DMN ran a story explicitly stating that the speed limits on a number of highways in Dallas were illegal, so no speeding ticket would survive a trivial challenge in court. The rules in Texas at the time (I have no idea if they are still the same) were that the speed limit must be based off the 85% speed, as measured by best practices. Dallas didn't do this, and instead just set limits based on what they think the roads should be marked at. And thus, the limits themselves were illegally low.
That kind of illegal activity to make our lives less safe is common. That wasn't the only case, but was the only one for where I lived while it happened.
If people stopped tailgating and otherwise driving recklessly, crashes involving slow-moving vehicles would go way down.
And if slower traffic took slower routes, or just kept right religiously, crashes for everyone would go down even more. Blocking traffic is illegal as well. Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them, and safety will be increased more than removing the fast cars.
Wired ran a factless article saying they think that it's not accurate. Uber responded "nuh uh", and Wired responded 'is too".
If it were so fraudulent, it'd be easy to prove false, right? Well, Wired couldn't, and instead published rumours as fact. Great journalism.
I deal in fact. Not deciding I don't like something, so I hate on it regardless of fact.
With Uber you're relying on a sleazy company to police themselves.
Right, sleazy company. You don't like them, so you repeat other's lies about them, so you don't have to take responsibility for your assertions of sleazyness. We get it, you hate Uber. Just post "I hate Uber" and move on. Arguing the points when you obviously don't understand them doesn't help your case. It just makes you look more irrational.
You are a documented traveller, so you go through normal border checkpoints.
Right, so all I'd need to have done to get special treatment is to lose my documentation once I'm in the EU and claim asylum, and be on the dole.
When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.
When you see people legally migrating into a country do you think that the government didn't check a single ID or ask a single person what their name is?
But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.
So the, what is it now? 27? US states that have pledged in the US to do just that are all governed by liars?
I've known a number of asylum seekers in the US. They faced scrutiny. They didn't come in a mass migration, but they were still asylum seekers that ended up in the US. And what you say is 100% wrong. Stop listening to the lying fear mongers.
So if I white list my management system as the only system that can talk to my routers, the firewall won't be able to see the traffic to China because it will use a different port.
That only works in the center of certain large cities (eg: NYC)
As this article and discussion is about NYC, I'll take your post to be in agreement, since you say it works in NYC, but not elsewhere, when I said nothing about elsewhere, you haven't disagreed with anything I said just disagreed with the idea of agreeing with Uber. We get it, you hate Uber, and Uber is 100% legal in NYC and works well in NYC as a competitor of taxis.
Whether you agree with the current law or not, the authorities should not have allowed Uber to continue to profit by ignoring it.
Uber is compliant with NYC law. That's why the taxis are suing NYC. They know Uber is legal, and don't want to lose that argument again. So they are suing NYC to change the law to make the 100% legal Uber into an illegal service. Private car service is well defined in NYC, and Uber is following those rules to be a 100% legal limousine service.
The cities don't want to pay back the medallion costs. The medallions were free. That you assigned some value to a free thing and sold it shouldn't mean that the city now owes you money for it.
Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.
Uber is 100% legal. That's why the taxis are suing the city, asking them to make Uber illegal, rather than suing Uber. Uber is 100% legal in NYC. Uber follows all the same rules at the private car services. They are a short distance limousine, and regulated and compliant with those rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Rugby watchers say the same about American football.
And some of the rules are contradictory and inconsistent. Lying on the ground in basketball? Getting up without moving either foot is "traveling" when you didn't move either foot. But doing the caterpillar while on the ground and moving half the length of the court isn't traveling.
Flag on that play. Doesn't count as an example of what's allowed.
Banned in my country
All of sports is arbitrary. Have you seen the rules of basketball? Carry the ball two steps without bouncing, and you're fine. But three steps? That's a penalty.
Not if you are jumping for a dunk. You get 2 steps and a jump, and no limit on the number of steps in a "jump", that's not only arbitrary, but capricious.
cycling, where they have to actually add weight to the bicycles. Consumer bikes go faster than pro ones
That's simply false. You pick the level track, and the person on the 15 lb pro bike will have an advantage over the 10 lb consumer bike. The weight was to prevent the $5,000,000 bike having an advantage over the $20,000 pro bike on climbs and such. There's a point where spending $1,000,000 per gram (of lightness) no longer has anything to do with skill or ability. So minimum weights were set in the days where it was reasonable for a bike set in race trim. That carbon fiber and such made it to sub-$1000 bikes doesn't require a rules change.
But the aerodynamics, geometry and mechanical advantage would still have an athlete with a 10 lb store bike lose to a 15 lb race bike, for anything other than maybe a long climb stage.
Yes it's heaver. Yes it's artificially handicapped. But that doesn't mean that it's actually inferior. That you don't realize this is proof that you don't know what you are talking about for the other items as well. But bikes is something I'm an expert on, so I know you to be wrong there.
Uniformly, they look at the rules and see that someone willing to spend $10B can guarantee a win against a team of lesser means. That's not a "sport" of skill or ability, but a sport of who can spend the most (and game the rules the most).
I can't think of any pro sport that doesn't have equipment rules. Basketball and soccer not only specify the ball quite explicitly, but also the uniforms. Maybe not to the degree of skiing, but both sports have rules on what you can wear to play. So why do you single out skiing? Every sport has rules. Most rules are there to enforce "fair" of one nature or another.
And there are probably many more...
Yeah, every sport. Clubs and balls (and shoes) in golf, disks in disk golf, something in every sport. So to single out a few is silly. "Every single sport in the history of the planet" is a more complete list. I bet you'd get disqualified (and beat up) if you showed up to a kaber toss with a corked kaber.500 years ago.
Even the ancient greek olympic games generally specified the suits allowed. and generally that was "none". If you want a fair contest, you have the gear provided by the meet, and everyone must perform naked. Shoes don't give you an advantage in grip for the long jump or 110m hurdles when you can't wear shoes.
It is certainly true that they are already leading lives different to the average Joe when they can get a life ban from sport for using an over the counter cold treatment that contains a banned substance.
Yeah, and they can get a ban for eating a salad (made of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). Over simplifying the issues and presenting as an absolute with the intention of deceiving is a lie. You are lying. An athelete with a cold can go to a medical doctor, have their symptoms diagnosed, and be issued a prescription for a banned substance, then compete while on that banned substance and test positive for that banned substance, and not have any sanctions taken against them, even if they win (which, is unlikely if they are competing with a bad cold).
Now, if the athlete is sneaking banned substances and breaking the rules by taking it in secret in unknown doses, the sensitive tests that look for it will get a true positive, and without the pre-disclosure and documented treatment regimen, will be assumed to be an abuser.
The system works as intended, and isn't nearly as bad as the abusers claim it is.
the people who are willing to tailgate and push
Those aren't safe speeders. Those are unsafe assholes who also speed. Note, if you go 55 in a 55 at 2 inches off the bumper of the car in front of you, you'll never be pulled over at a speed trap. The cops are looking for speeders only, and ignore all other infractions. When they stop sleeping in the bushes, waiting for the beep of a car over a certain speed, they might actually look at traffic and pull over those dricing unsafely, whether too slow, or tailgating.
Oh, and nobody can "push" you, unless they commit assault. That you are intimidated by others is a psychological problem with you, not a "push".
Instead of telling me to google it, could you point to a specific study?
4 links, 2 of which Google. The Google links have top results agreeing with me, the TxDOT and USDOT. Your opinion is that everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right, and if I don't adequately support my stance with citations you approve of, you'll dismiss the massive amount of evidence I presented and continue to believe everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right?
As I indicated, a waste of my time. There exists nothing that can change your closed mind. So why should I waste my time trying? That'd make me the fool, to match your troll. Why didn't you click on my second link? https://www.motorists.org/issu... should be what you were looking for, and is only one click off the main page. You can't be bothered to make two clicks to find what you claim to be so desperately looking for, even when pointed to it. And we should bend over backwards to not only give you what you are looking for, but in a manner you wish to receive it. I can think of no explanation other than you are a troll.
So the idea to "Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them" is ridiculous.
So we shouldn't pull them over even when blocking others and in the wrong lane? That's ridiculous. Obviously the "illegally slow" was implied. Most places have laws against slow traffic in one form or another. But the police don't *ever* enforce them. Speeding is easier to catch, even if not any more common. If, rather than focusing on the safe speeders, if the super-slow were targeted, then safety would be improved for all.
And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.
All of those are banned from the interstate. They are limited to slower and smaller roads, ones appropriate to that type of vehicle.
Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.
I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study. That you object to reality will not change it.
Common sense is rarely right when applied to a subject you don't have actual knowledge of. That you think it's a bad idea is proof that you are both ignorant of the topic, and arrogant about your ignorance at the same time. A lethal combination.
I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Where to start? Go to http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS and run 1000 or so search queries on every topic you want. Most of the "studies" are re-statements or analysis of FARS data, as it's one of the most complete databases of its kind in the world (yes, much of the rest of the world builds local law based on US-only data, as it's the best source for the data). Then go to https://www.motorists.org/ and see what they have on how to set a proper speed limit. The NMA will have lots of cites, no need to repeat them all here for someone that's demanding "citation needed" as a dismissive, rather than an honest query. If it was and honest question, why did't you google https://www.google.com/search?... or https://www.google.com/search?... ?
The answer is, you don't actually want an answer, you just want to argue. When the two most obvious search strings I think of give first links to TXDoT and USDOT manuals recomending setting the limit at 85% for optimal safety, why would you question it? Where did you get your traffic engineering degree? TTI, as an engineering extension to Texas A&M is a good place to start.
There, cites, and hundreds of hours of work to educate yourself. Thousands of hours of work if your mind is as closed as it appears.
Why did I want that link to be to an Onion article about congressional term limits?
There are lots of no kill shelters that would survive. They would just do what a full no kill shelter does, and refuse new animals. The no-kills near me cherry pick "adoptable" breeds from the regular shelters and advertise those. They increase the capacity of the kill shelters, but don't offer a different or better service. You should only adopt from a kill shelter, the animal you save is saved. To be "no kill" you must not kill, or release to those who would (directly or indirectly).
Nature doesn't "learn". Nature adapts. Those are different. A river that changes course doesn't have a memory of the old path. It didn't learn a new way. The new way happened, so it took it.
For not euthanizing the rabid animal when they had a chance.
The plural of person is people. There is no other way to word it. That you attach so much emotion and subtext to words doesn't invalidate when someone else uses them correctly, and you don't like the implications. "The people", "humanity", "human kind" and hundreds of other ways can be used to include everyone. What would you have them use for the plural of person? Persons? That's no longer in common usage.
Humans treat people animals poorly, yet PETA doesn't ever speak out on that. Why? Does PETA hate humans? PETA, because "misanthrope" isn't hipster enough.
Is there a location where the camera tickets give points? Where I've seen them used, they are yet another class of crime. Speed tickets used to be actual real crimes. Jury trials and all that. They started as misdemeanors. There was no other legal classification to put them under. Then "infraction" was created. It was a sub-crime that didn't have any of the protections, but had lower damages as well. Then, where speed cameras have been used, I've seen those as a lower crime than the non-crime infringements. You don't get points from a speed camera, so you can get 1000 tickets in a month and not lose your license. They are non-moving violations given to the car, with no proof of driver. If you want to contest because you weren't driving, that argument will only be accepted if you identify the driver. So they ticket the car for moving too fast, not the driver for doing it (unless the driver was not the owner, and the owner gets the ticket re-assigned to a human). For that even lower class of non-crime, they don't use points, as those go to the driver. If they did that, many more people would fight them. And they want the cash, not the hassle.
The computer doesn't lie about the speeding.
TFA says the computer is lying about the speeding.
People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.
No, people hate them because they don't work. They don't change behavior. Sending someone a ticket weeks after an event will not work to modify that event. And hiding them to try to catch as many people as possible makes them less of an immediate deterrent as well. Post a "speed camera 50m" sign (as I've seen in some places outside the US) and paint them bright yellow, and you'll do much more to reduce speeding than hidden cameras mailing out tickets long after the event in question.
But they don't want people to change behavior. They only want people to pay the "speed tax" and for that to work, they encourage speeding, while punishing it. That's why people find them frustrating.
(and they drive like a-holes)
Stop projecting.
But they don't encourage safe driving. Places with speed cameras haven't seen a drop in crashes.
Those factors combine to a bathtub graph of safety that's centered *above* the speed limit. Generally because the speed limits are set too low, often illegally so. I remember (pre-Internet, so I didn't find a cite, feel free to look it up in a library, none near me carry the Dallas Morning News from the '80s to search) when Dallas set the speed limits on the road so low that they violated state law. Eventually, Dallas changed the limits, after the DMN ran a story explicitly stating that the speed limits on a number of highways in Dallas were illegal, so no speeding ticket would survive a trivial challenge in court. The rules in Texas at the time (I have no idea if they are still the same) were that the speed limit must be based off the 85% speed, as measured by best practices. Dallas didn't do this, and instead just set limits based on what they think the roads should be marked at. And thus, the limits themselves were illegally low.
That kind of illegal activity to make our lives less safe is common. That wasn't the only case, but was the only one for where I lived while it happened.
If people stopped tailgating and otherwise driving recklessly, crashes involving slow-moving vehicles would go way down.
And if slower traffic took slower routes, or just kept right religiously, crashes for everyone would go down even more. Blocking traffic is illegal as well. Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them, and safety will be increased more than removing the fast cars.
And Uber's real-time map is a lie,
Wired ran a factless article saying they think that it's not accurate. Uber responded "nuh uh", and Wired responded 'is too".
If it were so fraudulent, it'd be easy to prove false, right? Well, Wired couldn't, and instead published rumours as fact. Great journalism.
I deal in fact. Not deciding I don't like something, so I hate on it regardless of fact.
With Uber you're relying on a sleazy company to police themselves.
Right, sleazy company. You don't like them, so you repeat other's lies about them, so you don't have to take responsibility for your assertions of sleazyness. We get it, you hate Uber. Just post "I hate Uber" and move on. Arguing the points when you obviously don't understand them doesn't help your case. It just makes you look more irrational.
You are a documented traveller, so you go through normal border checkpoints.
Right, so all I'd need to have done to get special treatment is to lose my documentation once I'm in the EU and claim asylum, and be on the dole.
When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.
When you see people legally migrating into a country do you think that the government didn't check a single ID or ask a single person what their name is?
But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.
So the, what is it now? 27? US states that have pledged in the US to do just that are all governed by liars?
I've known a number of asylum seekers in the US. They faced scrutiny. They didn't come in a mass migration, but they were still asylum seekers that ended up in the US. And what you say is 100% wrong. Stop listening to the lying fear mongers.
So if I white list my management system as the only system that can talk to my routers, the firewall won't be able to see the traffic to China because it will use a different port.
I hope you don't use a computer for your day job.
That only works in the center of certain large cities (eg: NYC)
As this article and discussion is about NYC, I'll take your post to be in agreement, since you say it works in NYC, but not elsewhere, when I said nothing about elsewhere, you haven't disagreed with anything I said just disagreed with the idea of agreeing with Uber. We get it, you hate Uber, and Uber is 100% legal in NYC and works well in NYC as a competitor of taxis.
Whether you agree with the current law or not, the authorities should not have allowed Uber to continue to profit by ignoring it.
Uber is compliant with NYC law. That's why the taxis are suing NYC. They know Uber is legal, and don't want to lose that argument again. So they are suing NYC to change the law to make the 100% legal Uber into an illegal service. Private car service is well defined in NYC, and Uber is following those rules to be a 100% legal limousine service.
Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.
Uber is 100% legal. That's why the taxis are suing the city, asking them to make Uber illegal, rather than suing Uber. Uber is 100% legal in NYC. Uber follows all the same rules at the private car services. They are a short distance limousine, and regulated and compliant with those rules.