Right, so if you are in the stands saying the plays as you see them live (or radio or whatever), you are clear, but doing the same while watching it on TV is disallowed.
So everyone who worked on that movie will get 100% paid for it, and only the non-working investors will be out any money, and they are guaranteed by law a no-risk investment. Got it. Must protect profits for billionaires, not workers.
I will remember not to pay you and see how you like it and make up some rationalization you already got paid.
Every person involved was already paid. The Grip and such got paid cash on the day they worked. Stealing it after hurts nobody who "worked" on it. Pay me cash for my work, then steal it after I'm paid. That won't hurt me.
Then prove it. Point to a law that states there is any shield of liability. Because if it's not there, it doesn't exist. But I can't prove there's nothing there. "___" There, I've just quoted the nothing that proves my point.
Instead of asking an open-ended "why" for something that is known, just look it up and then you can discuss it intelligently.
If it's known, why can't you answer it?
If you do know, and you're asking "why" anyways, it sounds like FUD where you know the actual details don't support your position, but you want to raise the possibility that they might.
No. The idea is that I know you are wrong. And I can prove it. But you'll still argue that your opinion trumps reality, so I wanted you to look for yourself. Maybe you'd find:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/...
That was the first result on my search. There are thousands more. All indicating that Uber has "has received final approval from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission to [operate in NYC]"
Reality proves you wrong. Private cars are legal, regulated, and Uber is one. Legally. At least in NYC. One of their complaints is that there are thousands of separate commissions all regulating the services separately. Some state, most local. And no easy or unifying operating mechanism.
Uber is not a "private car service" in NY. There. That has been answered. If you want to go into the details, research it, and discuss it from a position of claiming to understand it.
Uber is licensed to operate as a private car service in NYC. The "why" before was as much "why do you think they aren't?" But you won't look. You are so sure you are right, that you refuse to look or listen. Why?
Everybody lives under a local government. That's the level people usually expect public transport to work. Most public transport crosses city lines.
It won't work for everyone. For those people, they'd just pay more for gas. Are you looking for the "Captain Obvious is Obvious" award? Yes, there exists almost no solution to almost any problem that's 100%. But 99% is good enough.
What, do you think you have the right to free fuel for life? The right to pollute the planet? I honestly don't understand your point. "I don't like it."? Then just say it and move on. But trying to build it up like there's some big reveal coming, fishing for information (again why, to try to convince me it would hurt me?).
I can't afford $30K a year in gas tax or a Tesla. Most people can't.
No, most people can. They would choose to not drive. If driving to work is more expensive than not working, then move or quit. If everyone doing your rural job quit because it was too expensive to get around, then the prices would go up to pay people more, and you could then afford to drive again.
Did you have a complaint other than "I don't like it, and my closed group of friends who are unrepresentative of the US would be negatively impacted"?
The defense for a taxi company is that the industry is regulated, the risk is regulated, and the local government decides on granting the driver a taxi license or not, and so the company has followed the system. It isn't their fault, primarily because the regulation establish the standard of how much checking they are supposed to do. So it is hard to make a free-form, "didn't do enough" type of argument.
You are wrong. Following a regulation is not a shield from liability, unless the regulation explicitly states it as such, and almost none do.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Just stop. You don't know law. And you are wrong on every point here. Yes, I'm not posting cite. You aren't worth the time. Reality can't be disproved by some idiot on the Internet, so I cite reality. It's right, you are wrong.
The difference is that the private car services are legal. Do drug dealers advertise with their real name, addresses and phone numbers? The private car services are legal in NYC. Yet they refuse to use the same rules for Uber. Why?
Nope, the Internet says they are working strong. While I was in NYC, I "hailed" a private car more than once. They may get fined for some breaches of the rules, but under the rules they operate under, they are 100% legal. They aren't supposed to respond to hails. So long as they don't, they can be 100% legal. That you don't know the rules doesn't mean they aren't there, and the private cars aren't meeting them.
You can look up the statistics of how many are busted for it.
I can, but you can't? If you could, why didn't you post to anything indicating that a private car service was illegal in NYC? Oh yeah, because they are 100% legal (so long as they aren't Uber). It's Uber being singled out, told to operate under inconsistent rules. Their response (right or wrong) is that they will operate under no rules, until forced to do so in court. Pretty much exactly the same as private cars in NYC. And private cars have existed for decades, and are going strong (and are 100% legal, under certain operating conditions).
Ah, the "I'm too dumb to think of it, do it must be impossible" argument. He was late. To what, I'm not sure. Being late can cause harm. Can you not think of any ways being late could cause harm?
There's no public transport in most towns in Alaska. The big ones have public transport. Pick the best case and tell me if that's still insufficient for your demands. The bus runs down my street, so I don't think I'd be too bad off. But I don't generally use it.
I had a friend who got a contingency lawyer. He was on a bicycle, cycling legally, when he was hit by a car breaking the law. The car insurance offered him $50k for his medical and lost work (no "pain" bonus). He felt slighted by that, having heard the stories about people getting high payouts. So he called a few lawyers. He ended up signing with one who promised "the most money (you are due)". They promised they'd get him more money (up to the most he was due). After he signed all the paperwork (including a power of attorney), they took the initial insurance offer, took the money from the insurance company, waited the legal maximum (6 months, I think) and paid him out, after taking their 35%. So he didn't eve have enough left to cover his medical bills.
I told him to sue them, but he was so tired of the mess, he just filed bankruptcy to start over.
Many of the high profile cases are taken on contingency. She may have nothing and be paying nothing, and the millionaire lawyer is footing the bill, hoping for a 50% payout on millions.
Your loss is not equal to your damage. He was "damaged" the cost of the trip, plus the cost of being late. So that' easily over $20, even for a $5 ride.
When it is a group that is in ongoing violation of the regulations,
Yes, like the private car service in NYC acting like taxis, but being tolerated for decades. Someone does "private car" over the Internet, and the lawsuits immedately start. The taxis would shut down the legal private car services, if they could. But they can't, so they focus on shutting out the new guy, regardless of legality or regulations.
If I take mass transit, the cost is 80.00/wk to go about 100 miles round trip daily, and I have to walk or bicycle the last 1-2 miles. It's not cheap, it's not convenient, and it's not faster than driving most of the time.
Yes, and if fuel tax was 100x what it is now, then you'd have many more people taking public transport, in most cases making it cash positive. That, and the spike in taxes would be able to pay for lots of improvements.
In other words, demand for public transit does not make public transit happen.
Yeah, when you live in a corrupt 3rd world shithole like the US, that's the case. But have you ever tried to take public transport outside the US?
Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.
You come back when you can define pesticide. It's a broad term that includes more than just insecticide. Even worse, you were incorrectly correcting other people.
GMOs usually need far fewer pesticides sprayed on them, that is pretty much the point of them most of the time.
Nope. The term "pesticide" includes herbicide. And pretty much the point of them most of the time is to be Roundup resistant. Then sell the farmers 100x the amount of roundup you could normally use. The crops live, all the weeds die. Spray more. Spray often.
That you didn't know that the #1 product from Monsanto (the #1 maker of GMO) was designed in increase, not decrease pesticide use pretty much means that people should believe the opposite of anything you say.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so if you are in the stands saying the plays as you see them live (or radio or whatever), you are clear, but doing the same while watching it on TV is disallowed.
I played a soccer game at half time at a Cowboys game, on the field of Texas Stadium. Does that count?
Rugby has rules about where you can grab an opponent to tackle him to the ground (strictly below the waist).
I thought the rule was not at or above the neck. Also, you can lift them, but not put them down (at least not hard).
So everyone who worked on that movie will get 100% paid for it, and only the non-working investors will be out any money, and they are guaranteed by law a no-risk investment. Got it. Must protect profits for billionaires, not workers.
At the request of the FBI. And it wasn't just the NZ police that confiscated things.
I will remember not to pay you and see how you like it and make up some rationalization you already got paid.
Every person involved was already paid. The Grip and such got paid cash on the day they worked. Stealing it after hurts nobody who "worked" on it. Pay me cash for my work, then steal it after I'm paid. That won't hurt me.
And confiscate millions that, even if he isn't convicted or even tried, he will have trouble getting back.
Then prove it. Point to a law that states there is any shield of liability. Because if it's not there, it doesn't exist. But I can't prove there's nothing there. "___" There, I've just quoted the nothing that proves my point.
Instead of asking an open-ended "why" for something that is known, just look it up and then you can discuss it intelligently.
If it's known, why can't you answer it?
If you do know, and you're asking "why" anyways, it sounds like FUD where you know the actual details don't support your position, but you want to raise the possibility that they might.
No. The idea is that I know you are wrong. And I can prove it. But you'll still argue that your opinion trumps reality, so I wanted you to look for yourself. Maybe you'd find: http://thenextweb.com/insider/...
That was the first result on my search. There are thousands more. All indicating that Uber has "has received final approval from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission to [operate in NYC]"
Reality proves you wrong. Private cars are legal, regulated, and Uber is one. Legally. At least in NYC. One of their complaints is that there are thousands of separate commissions all regulating the services separately. Some state, most local. And no easy or unifying operating mechanism.
Uber is not a "private car service" in NY. There. That has been answered. If you want to go into the details, research it, and discuss it from a position of claiming to understand it.
Uber is licensed to operate as a private car service in NYC. The "why" before was as much "why do you think they aren't?" But you won't look. You are so sure you are right, that you refuse to look or listen. Why?
It won't work for everyone. For those people, they'd just pay more for gas. Are you looking for the "Captain Obvious is Obvious" award? Yes, there exists almost no solution to almost any problem that's 100%. But 99% is good enough.
What, do you think you have the right to free fuel for life? The right to pollute the planet? I honestly don't understand your point. "I don't like it."? Then just say it and move on. But trying to build it up like there's some big reveal coming, fishing for information (again why, to try to convince me it would hurt me?).
I can't afford $30K a year in gas tax or a Tesla. Most people can't.
No, most people can. They would choose to not drive. If driving to work is more expensive than not working, then move or quit. If everyone doing your rural job quit because it was too expensive to get around, then the prices would go up to pay people more, and you could then afford to drive again.
Did you have a complaint other than "I don't like it, and my closed group of friends who are unrepresentative of the US would be negatively impacted"?
The defense for a taxi company is that the industry is regulated, the risk is regulated, and the local government decides on granting the driver a taxi license or not, and so the company has followed the system. It isn't their fault, primarily because the regulation establish the standard of how much checking they are supposed to do. So it is hard to make a free-form, "didn't do enough" type of argument.
You are wrong. Following a regulation is not a shield from liability, unless the regulation explicitly states it as such, and almost none do.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Just stop. You don't know law. And you are wrong on every point here. Yes, I'm not posting cite. You aren't worth the time. Reality can't be disproved by some idiot on the Internet, so I cite reality. It's right, you are wrong.
The difference is that the private car services are legal. Do drug dealers advertise with their real name, addresses and phone numbers? The private car services are legal in NYC. Yet they refuse to use the same rules for Uber. Why?
You can look up the statistics of how many are busted for it.
I can, but you can't? If you could, why didn't you post to anything indicating that a private car service was illegal in NYC? Oh yeah, because they are 100% legal (so long as they aren't Uber). It's Uber being singled out, told to operate under inconsistent rules. Their response (right or wrong) is that they will operate under no rules, until forced to do so in court. Pretty much exactly the same as private cars in NYC. And private cars have existed for decades, and are going strong (and are 100% legal, under certain operating conditions).
Ah, the "I'm too dumb to think of it, do it must be impossible" argument. He was late. To what, I'm not sure. Being late can cause harm. Can you not think of any ways being late could cause harm?
There's no public transport in most towns in Alaska. The big ones have public transport. Pick the best case and tell me if that's still insufficient for your demands. The bus runs down my street, so I don't think I'd be too bad off. But I don't generally use it.
I had a friend who got a contingency lawyer. He was on a bicycle, cycling legally, when he was hit by a car breaking the law. The car insurance offered him $50k for his medical and lost work (no "pain" bonus). He felt slighted by that, having heard the stories about people getting high payouts. So he called a few lawyers. He ended up signing with one who promised "the most money (you are due)". They promised they'd get him more money (up to the most he was due). After he signed all the paperwork (including a power of attorney), they took the initial insurance offer, took the money from the insurance company, waited the legal maximum (6 months, I think) and paid him out, after taking their 35%. So he didn't eve have enough left to cover his medical bills.
I told him to sue them, but he was so tired of the mess, he just filed bankruptcy to start over.
That's how the system works in the US.
Many of the high profile cases are taken on contingency. She may have nothing and be paying nothing, and the millionaire lawyer is footing the bill, hoping for a 50% payout on millions.
Your loss is not equal to your damage. He was "damaged" the cost of the trip, plus the cost of being late. So that' easily over $20, even for a $5 ride.
When it is a group that is in ongoing violation of the regulations,
Yes, like the private car service in NYC acting like taxis, but being tolerated for decades. Someone does "private car" over the Internet, and the lawsuits immedately start. The taxis would shut down the legal private car services, if they could. But they can't, so they focus on shutting out the new guy, regardless of legality or regulations.
If I take mass transit, the cost is 80.00/wk to go about 100 miles round trip daily, and I have to walk or bicycle the last 1-2 miles. It's not cheap, it's not convenient, and it's not faster than driving most of the time.
Yes, and if fuel tax was 100x what it is now, then you'd have many more people taking public transport, in most cases making it cash positive. That, and the spike in taxes would be able to pay for lots of improvements.
In other words, demand for public transit does not make public transit happen.
Yeah, when you live in a corrupt 3rd world shithole like the US, that's the case. But have you ever tried to take public transport outside the US?
Why, trying to Dox me?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=about+pes...
Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.
You come back when you can define pesticide. It's a broad term that includes more than just insecticide. Even worse, you were incorrectly correcting other people.
Nope. It's $10,000 of seed, and $100,000 in manual labour picking weeds, or $50,000 in seed (GMO roundup resistant) and $50,000 in Roundup.
The second one is easier and cheaper, and much worse for the consumer and environment. Now what do you pick?
GMOs usually need far fewer pesticides sprayed on them, that is pretty much the point of them most of the time.
Nope. The term "pesticide" includes herbicide. And pretty much the point of them most of the time is to be Roundup resistant. Then sell the farmers 100x the amount of roundup you could normally use. The crops live, all the weeds die. Spray more. Spray often.
That you didn't know that the #1 product from Monsanto (the #1 maker of GMO) was designed in increase, not decrease pesticide use pretty much means that people should believe the opposite of anything you say.
You are choosing to drive. If they actually did that tax, public transport would quickly improve as everyone rushed to use it.