I think Amazon realizes it would be like suing the road after a bank robbery. The road may have been used in the bank robbery, but suing it will lose, and make you look like an ass.
We don't let Microsoft break the law. We don't let BP break the law. We don't let Uber break the law.
But we let Microsoft and BP have a hand in making the law. They are the established giant companies, and have been working with the government for years. The reason Uber deserves support is not that Uber is good, but that Uber is disruptive, and that is supposed to lead to better outcomes for us.
If Uber is declared legal, there's nothing stopping 1,000,000 new "taxi" companies starting up. Unless we allow patenting "order a taxi... on a phone (app)" as a monopoly.
The choice is between change and no change. The choice isn't a binary between Uber or Taxi. We'll have both for a long time, and after that we'll have so many that nobody will remember Uber. Second to market wins. They can wait for the first to pave the way, pay the costs of court battles, then step in and do it better and cheaper. And 1,000,000 will follow that.
So Uber is so thoroughly better that we need to pass special laws to protect the buggy whip makers? The moment Uber is declared "not illegal, for reals this time" all the cab companies will shut down and become Uber drivers?
I'll answer your question with my own: If you live in the South, what's stopping you from shopping at an independently owned grocer instead of Walmart?
When I grew up in the south, I shopped only at an independent grocer. Unfortunately, they were so successful that they ended up getting bought out by Safeway. So my choices were reduced to Albertsons, HEB, Kroger, and some others. And yes, there was a Wal-Mart Supercenter not too far away. Wait, what was your question again?
Why don't we protect _both_ groups of workers? Crazy? I know, right?
Sounds like a complete change from your first post. The reason you don't like Uber (compared to a taxi service) is that Uber doesn't treat its workers well.
Now, you are saying your first post was 100% in error, and that all hire-car services should be regulated to a standard greater than taxis currently face.
Though, I'd question the result when comparing a freelance uber driver who drives 10 hours a week at changing and unpredictable times for extra pocket money. When you require greater regulations to stamp out freelancing, what will the freelancers do for income?
Clinton was fingered as going to an island that has been visited by a number of "important" people, owned by a charity, and nicknamed "orgy island". I've seen no proof that he had sex there. It was all implied. Stephen Hawking has been there too, and nobody has maligned him.
The whole thing stinks of another Hillary smear campaign.
You are taking them to extremes when the extremes don't need to make sense for the middle case to work.
Big brains work to give us an advantage. Beyond that advantage, bigger brains become a liability. More delicate, more resources, and all that. Yes, once we've solved all those problems of big brains (helmets for all and sufficient food), one would presume natural selection would again favor larger brains, but solving all those problems also reduces the overall pressure of natural selection.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply defining the terms used. That's where all this mess comes from, people who assume definitions of words. But anyone who tries to get clarity is assigned to one side or the other and vilified.
So someone at The University of North Florida who isn't planning on going home this weekend (to Miami) sees a post for a ride share to Miami, offering $50 for fuel, and decides to accept the ride share. It's no longer a ride share because the person wouldn't have gone there at that time, except for the offer or a share and payment?
How is it "ridesharing" if you specifically call someone to come pick you up, take you to a specific destination they were not going to, give them money to compensate them for their time AND give them a tip, as well as rate them on their service?
Up to paying more for the service than the service cost to provide, and rating them, the rest seems to be explicitly the definition of "ridesharing".
Here, a taxi meter is defined in law as a calibrated device that mechanically measures traveled distance of the vehicle.
I have no idea what the definition is in London, but a GPS app can never legally be used as a meter here, so it would make sense that it would be ruled to not be a meter.
The judgement means, to this point, there are rulings they aren't breaking the law, and no rulings they are. That'd be "declared legal" for all useful uses of language. At best, you could qualify it with a "so far" at the end.
If you take the self-named terms as reality, then the best country on the planet is North Korea. It's a Democratic People's Republic, says so right in the name.
The fascist dictatorship calling itself "socialist" wasn't.
The problem is the mismeasure of the system. What do the stars measure? The experience of everyone who has seen it?
But that's not the same as the experience of the person who hasn't seen it. Would the "average" remaining people agree with the pre-screener critics? Siskel and Ebert was a good predictor for my mother, but not anyone else I knew. She pretty much 100% liked every 2-up movie and hated every 2-down movie. But her experience is not typical. Most people are more split from the critics.
And it's not just the pre-screening critics, but the opening weekend viewers. The first weekenders to go see the new Marvel movie may not be representative of the remaining population.
But it all goes back to the first question. What are the stars trying to measure? A useful measure is whether a random person would like it. But they are based on a metric that's never been linked to that outcome.
Why is it I sense a doctoral thesis coming out of this? Who's up for it?
Icebox is a vernacular word for refrigerator (as is Frigidaire, in some locations). The language changed and absorbed the previous term, rendering it obsolete and meaningless. Much like you could argue a dashboard in a car is used technically incorrectly, as well as a cupboard that holds plates. It's too late, the language has changed. Fighting it is pointless.
It was only about 100 years ago when the #1 cause of death in females was childbirth. One would think that the medical advances would be more disruptive in the change of the quality of life of mothers (who aren't dead).
No, contrary to widespread misconceptions, Crapper did not invent the flush toilet.
Read the words you objected to. Read your words. Keep reading them until they are not contradictory. Note, there's more than one reading where they are not contradictory.
The failure is not in their claims of what Crapper did for the crapper, but in your deliberately contrary reading of "popularized" and "developed". I've "developed" a photograph. I didn't invent photography, nor even take that photo. One can come in on something that exists and "develop" it. He has multiple patents on the toilet, and made improvements upon it. He developed the toilet further, and popularized it. That your reading of "developed" is contrary to the meaning "developed further" is your failure, not the authors.
BBQ is cooked on a grill. You don't need smoke. Smokeless propane grilling can be a BBQ. Though "mesquite BBQ" has more flavor, according to the BBQ snobs.
Not sure why you went off on that tangent since nothing I said had anything to do with calling grilling BBQ or vice-versa.
You implied that BBQ requires smoke. It does not. That's why he issued a correction. Your complain is either "real" or "good" BBQ requires smoke, which is not related to whether *all* BBQ requires smoke.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Amazon realizes it would be like suing the road after a bank robbery. The road may have been used in the bank robbery, but suing it will lose, and make you look like an ass.
We don't let Microsoft break the law. We don't let BP break the law. We don't let Uber break the law.
But we let Microsoft and BP have a hand in making the law. They are the established giant companies, and have been working with the government for years. The reason Uber deserves support is not that Uber is good, but that Uber is disruptive, and that is supposed to lead to better outcomes for us.
If Uber is declared legal, there's nothing stopping 1,000,000 new "taxi" companies starting up. Unless we allow patenting "order a taxi ... on a phone (app)" as a monopoly.
The choice is between change and no change. The choice isn't a binary between Uber or Taxi. We'll have both for a long time, and after that we'll have so many that nobody will remember Uber. Second to market wins. They can wait for the first to pave the way, pay the costs of court battles, then step in and do it better and cheaper. And 1,000,000 will follow that.
I'll answer your question with my own: If you live in the South, what's stopping you from shopping at an independently owned grocer instead of Walmart?
When I grew up in the south, I shopped only at an independent grocer. Unfortunately, they were so successful that they ended up getting bought out by Safeway. So my choices were reduced to Albertsons, HEB, Kroger, and some others. And yes, there was a Wal-Mart Supercenter not too far away. Wait, what was your question again?
And what stops you from taking a taxi to get home if Uber is too costly?
Why don't we protect _both_ groups of workers? Crazy? I know, right?
Sounds like a complete change from your first post. The reason you don't like Uber (compared to a taxi service) is that Uber doesn't treat its workers well.
Now, you are saying your first post was 100% in error, and that all hire-car services should be regulated to a standard greater than taxis currently face.
Though, I'd question the result when comparing a freelance uber driver who drives 10 hours a week at changing and unpredictable times for extra pocket money. When you require greater regulations to stamp out freelancing, what will the freelancers do for income?
Clinton was fingered as going to an island that has been visited by a number of "important" people, owned by a charity, and nicknamed "orgy island". I've seen no proof that he had sex there. It was all implied. Stephen Hawking has been there too, and nobody has maligned him.
The whole thing stinks of another Hillary smear campaign.
TJ never purchased a single slave. He freed 5-10 slaves (accounts are not clear, and differ).
You are taking them to extremes when the extremes don't need to make sense for the middle case to work.
Big brains work to give us an advantage. Beyond that advantage, bigger brains become a liability. More delicate, more resources, and all that. Yes, once we've solved all those problems of big brains (helmets for all and sufficient food), one would presume natural selection would again favor larger brains, but solving all those problems also reduces the overall pressure of natural selection.
How do you know it was non-consentual? Seems you are asserting your opinion as fact, to push a political agenda. That's not very ethical.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply defining the terms used. That's where all this mess comes from, people who assume definitions of words. But anyone who tries to get clarity is assigned to one side or the other and vilified.
So someone at The University of North Florida who isn't planning on going home this weekend (to Miami) sees a post for a ride share to Miami, offering $50 for fuel, and decides to accept the ride share. It's no longer a ride share because the person wouldn't have gone there at that time, except for the offer or a share and payment?
How is it "ridesharing" if you specifically call someone to come pick you up, take you to a specific destination they were not going to, give them money to compensate them for their time AND give them a tip, as well as rate them on their service?
Up to paying more for the service than the service cost to provide, and rating them, the rest seems to be explicitly the definition of "ridesharing".
Here, a taxi meter is defined in law as a calibrated device that mechanically measures traveled distance of the vehicle.
I have no idea what the definition is in London, but a GPS app can never legally be used as a meter here, so it would make sense that it would be ruled to not be a meter.
The judgement means, to this point, there are rulings they aren't breaking the law, and no rulings they are. That'd be "declared legal" for all useful uses of language. At best, you could qualify it with a "so far" at the end.
Your complaint is either "real" or "good" BBQ requires smoke, which is not related to whether *all* BBQ requires smoke.
I dare you to go to a real BBQ contest and see anyone grilling things quickly over propane and having the nerve to call it Barbecue.
Your complaint is either "real" or "good" BBQ requires smoke, which is not related to whether *all* BBQ requires smoke.
Microsoft Denial of Service 3.3?
If you take the self-named terms as reality, then the best country on the planet is North Korea. It's a Democratic People's Republic, says so right in the name.
The fascist dictatorship calling itself "socialist" wasn't.
He has no sense of humor, but his answer is correct. I don't see lefties getting all twisted over "sinister".
The problem is the mismeasure of the system. What do the stars measure? The experience of everyone who has seen it?
But that's not the same as the experience of the person who hasn't seen it. Would the "average" remaining people agree with the pre-screener critics? Siskel and Ebert was a good predictor for my mother, but not anyone else I knew. She pretty much 100% liked every 2-up movie and hated every 2-down movie. But her experience is not typical. Most people are more split from the critics.
And it's not just the pre-screening critics, but the opening weekend viewers. The first weekenders to go see the new Marvel movie may not be representative of the remaining population.
But it all goes back to the first question. What are the stars trying to measure? A useful measure is whether a random person would like it. But they are based on a metric that's never been linked to that outcome.
Why is it I sense a doctoral thesis coming out of this? Who's up for it?
Icebox is a vernacular word for refrigerator (as is Frigidaire, in some locations). The language changed and absorbed the previous term, rendering it obsolete and meaningless. Much like you could argue a dashboard in a car is used technically incorrectly, as well as a cupboard that holds plates. It's too late, the language has changed. Fighting it is pointless.
It was only about 100 years ago when the #1 cause of death in females was childbirth. One would think that the medical advances would be more disruptive in the change of the quality of life of mothers (who aren't dead).
developed and popularized by
No, contrary to widespread misconceptions, Crapper did not invent the flush toilet.
Read the words you objected to. Read your words. Keep reading them until they are not contradictory. Note, there's more than one reading where they are not contradictory.
The failure is not in their claims of what Crapper did for the crapper, but in your deliberately contrary reading of "popularized" and "developed". I've "developed" a photograph. I didn't invent photography, nor even take that photo. One can come in on something that exists and "develop" it. He has multiple patents on the toilet, and made improvements upon it. He developed the toilet further, and popularized it. That your reading of "developed" is contrary to the meaning "developed further" is your failure, not the authors.
Then why was the REA founded about 80 years ago because electrification was going so slowly?
Not sure why you went off on that tangent since nothing I said had anything to do with calling grilling BBQ or vice-versa.
You implied that BBQ requires smoke. It does not. That's why he issued a correction. Your complain is either "real" or "good" BBQ requires smoke, which is not related to whether *all* BBQ requires smoke.