I could tell people I'm MCSE or RHCE. Maybe a CAPM, or PMP. I have a CPA, perhaps.
Apparently some people have "The Knowledge." Can you imagine the context, how you'd deliver that line? "I have a certification in public sector financial auditing, the CPFA. Did your job require any certification or training?" "I have... *conspiratorial grin* The Knowledge."
Never put slang or idioms in quotes. It puts on airs, as f telling your audience that they and you are in an elite club who knows better.
That has nothing to do with Uber. There are other call cabs which do not need to maintain the standard of service that Black Cab does, but which are registered cabbies.
You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk.
No. Risks of the same type are identical. Management techniques change the risk.
Risk management terminology is annoying. A thing which may become a risk event is a risk. Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of a risk event. These are different things.
For example: A hard disk crash is a risk. The probability of a hard disk failing in a 5 year period is 50%. The severity of this risk is loss of data. In 5 years, you have a 50% risk of loss of data. Hard disk failure is your risk; a 50% risk of loss of data can be quantified as 0.5 * DATA_VALUE, which tells you how much risk this risk represents. This measure is not "how much hard disk failure", yet this measure and "hard disk failure" are both called risk.
You can reduce the probability of failure by adding RAID-5 with hot spare. The theoretical risk of a RAID-5 array failing completely in a short window is higher, but the risk crowds around the EOL of the drives (risk scales with age for hard drives, as they wear). Likewise, back-ups reduce the severity of loss to the severity of limited downtime.
The risks between Uber and Taxis are the same. The way those risks are managed--adjustments to their probability and severity--differ, and thus the amount of risk differs. Swimming in a 15 foot deep pool carries the same risk as swimming in a 30 foot deep pool: you may drown. In a 30 foot deep pool, people will have difficulty swimming down to you: the risk is greater, but it's the same risk.
Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.
Some google research invalidates this whole discussion anyway: You're covered by more insurance under Uber than you are in a traditional taxi. $1 million coverage if your Uber driver rams into a wall because he's retarded and drunk.
I mentioned cutting himself with a knife. HIV virons present in saliva are below the threshold of infection; HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.
3. Your scenario would be an accident and may even be covered by insurance.
You would still have HIV.
That is not what I said. I said most people know taxis have commercial insurance but don't know that many uber drivers don't.
This has never been a thing anyone I know has ever thought about. It's commonly accepted that you will sue the cab company in the event of incident. If the person is an individual, you can sue them; they may not have money to pay the lawsuit. Americans, at least, understand that businesses have unlimited money and can be forced to give you some of it.
It would make more sense, by the way, for cab companies with large fleets to *not* have insurance. Because the company has liability, the risk is spread across its entire fleet, and backed by the profit of all its operations. The cost of liability should be lower than the cost of insurance; if it is not, then the insurance agency will soon file bankruptcy. This is corrected by increasing premiums; sans-insurance, a cab fleet would require rates high enough to maintain funds on hand to cover that risk, which is an actual regulation in Europe (businesses are required to show their risks, their risk management plans, and funds to cover their managed risks when things go wrong).
By the way slugging is not widely known and only happens in a few cities. I don't understand how you don't see the difference between slugging and Uber. Slugging has no dispatch service, does not have requested end points and does not charge. It is very different than taxis and Uber who do all that.
Taxis can come to a place. This is not a risk.
Taxis involve paying money. This is a monetary risk of obvious magnitude (five bucks, twenty bucks, etc.).
Taxis involve getting into an unknown vehicle with an unknown individual. This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability; Uber controls this risk with traceability; Slugging may or may not be traceable.
All services carry the risk of bodily injury in collision. All systems control this risk by using licensed drivers (which leaves the risk of fraud: fake license, stolen tags) and by vehicular safety systems (airbags, seat belts). Consumers control this risk via lawsuit, with the assumption that a large business has money, and by personal medical insurance, with the assumption that they're covered for injury. In many cases, consumers also control this risk via uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance. These risk controls only address monetary risk; they do not address the risk of death or decreased quality of life.
"The Knowledge" is a stupid name. It tells me these people are haughty, arrogant dicks who I never want to deal with. Good customer service, a smile on their face, and piles of complaints the moment you're out of sight.
First off, your driver is full of bullshit and the car is an annoying delay in my day.
Second, I would destroy your driver. Very few can keep up with me in any topic; those who can are usually field experts, and I often surpass them in one or two conversations by picking out logical flaws in their knowledge. Some quantum physicists have proven immune to that: when I find a logical flaw, they go, "Oh... good point, I need to look into that more" and either come back with an explanation of where that area of study is weak or with a correction or additional fact that was required that neither of us had.
I'm a parasitic engineer. I pry every bit of knowledge I can out of anyone who has an abundance, and then quickly assemble it with other knowledge to generate new conclusions. This is why libraries exist: scholars would take information from thousands of people who never knew each others' work, slap it together, and form new collections of information that explained previously unknown things. That's one way to generate science: take a concept partially understood by two groups and put the two groups together, and they generate a more complete--possibly full--understanding.
Randall Monroe does it too; he's a lot smarter than me, and so does it better. Look at the Password Day stuff: PGP came out with pass phrases in the 90s, and other people demand random passwords, and others advocate unrelated memory techniques like mnemonics and the Roman room. Randy slapped together pass phrases, password entropy, and such conceptual memory techniques, and emitted the best password advice: pick four or so random words, string them together, and visualize or explain it. The last part is implied: he shows a frame with a visualization and an explanation.
... if a black cabbie tried to keep up with Randy, he'd get brought up sharp. It'd be amusing.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between the route selected by an Uber driver, and the route being selected by someone who is bound by a requirement to know what is the optimal route.
So being injured in an accident where the driver of the vehicle you are in is an exceptionally low risk. Even if it is a very low risk the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned with. The high consequences negate the low risk.
When you eat at any restaurant, you potentially consume food which was handled unsafely. The prep chef may have cut himself on a knife, and you could contract HIV from the food. Even if it is a very low risk, the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned about. Never eat food that you haven't cooked thoroughly and, if possible, exposed to gamma radiation.
The risk of no financial compensation should be enough. The other risks are also lower with taxis die to background checks and licensing. Background checks mean fewer felons driving.
Real-world data disagrees. Most crimes committed in this way are by people who have no previous arrest history relevant to the crime. For example: rapes often go unreported; many rapists have criminal histories including misdemeanors (graffiti, etc.) but not rape.
One major issue is that Uber looks very much like a taxi service while slugging looks completely different. People who use Uber can be easily duped into thinking it has the same protections as a taxi when it does not.
Most people accept taxi services because everyone else accepts taxi services. Your own argument supports this: most people are unaware that commercial driving involves special insurance, and are thus unaware of the loss of that insurance in certain cases. Slugging looks like a cheap ride; so does Uber.
I am not in a a no-fault state, yet I have $5000 Guest PIP.
Slugging is a free bus, yes. But Slugging involves a single driver--who may or may not have valid insurance or a valid license--carrying a single passenger. The driver is covered by no background check and no external registration service.
Your concern over insurance centers around collisions at fault of the driver. A collision at the fault of another driver covers an uninsured motorist and passengers through liability insurance. A collision at the fault of the driver which does not cause injury to the passenger would require no insurance coverage to protect the passenger. This particular risk is exceptionally low.
With both slugging and Uber, you risk riding with a driver who is any or all of uninsured, unlicensed, or criminal. With a taxi service, slugging, or Uber, you risk being injured in a collision or riding with a driver who is criminal. With a taxi service, your risk of no financial compensation in the event of injury is lower; all other risks are identical.
You have failed to differentiate the risk of slugging from the risk of Uber.
I did mention you can't transport water; it occurs to me you could refine transported water to potable or grey.
Perhaps we could transport energy. The system runs high-pressure fluids; we could apply pressure at one end and drive a turbine at a demarcation point. The system could transport biofuels or synthofuels--the stored output of excess hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal by combining air and water into hydrocarbons or other fuels.
This insurance may protect you even if you aren’t in your car. For example, if you were hit by an uninsured motorist while driving another person’s vehicle, walking across the street or riding your bike, the bodily injury portion of your insurance may help with your expenses in a covered incident.
Just one example. Insurance is strange. If a thief steals your bicycle from your car while you're in another state, your auto insurer will direct you to your homeowner's policy. Your homeowner's insurance will cover your bicycle. Uninsured motorist insurance often covers you in all situations.
When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.
It's often covered by Guest PIP.
When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.
Begging the question: how do you know this? Slug Lines and slugging in general have gone on for a long time with minimal incident. What sets Uber apart, in terms of risk, from traditional slugging?
First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?
You argued the passenger may not know the driver does not have insurance.
So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab?
,
Why should we force all of society to forgo the right to pay any person to drive them, without first having a third party validate the driver's insurance, driving record, criminal background, and mental state?
You assume the cab driver is uninsured. I assume the risk exists, and a person is deciding on that risk. When I call Yellow Cab Service for a traditional charter, I assume the risk that the cab driver might buttrape me--it happens--but we don't ban commercial taxi service.
You could walk outside and get hit by a bad driver under the same circumstances. Your own uninsured motorist insurance covers this, as well as the lack of insurance in situations you've described.
You're perceiving a risk much higher than actually exists. The only real risks are injury and crime. Injury falls onto personal medical insurance, personal uninsured motorist insurance, and so on, and besides has farther reaching implications than monetary cost; crime such as rape and murder occurs in regular commissioned taxis, and nobody has claimed it more prevalent on Uber-commissioned service.
The market pressure Uber causes provides positive benefit to society. Killing off Uber would cause bad things; which things are less bad?
Pipelines can ship solids, liquids, and gasses, Some pipelines are fully capable of transporting crude oil, then immediately transporting refined gasoline, then natural gas, then transporting coal, without huge maintenance cycles between. A client need only purchase transport from the shipper and their load will go through the pipeline.
It surprised me that you could switch between mediums without decommissioning, fully cleaning, and then recommissioning the pipeline at great expense. Quite the opposite, pipelines do allow for low-cost changeover of medium in normal operation. You cannot pipeline water or other food-grade materials in this way.
To be fair, Keystone deserves all the hate and fury it can attract. They go on TV talking about how misunderstood the Keystone project is, and spout irrelevant bullshit.
The worst claim I've heard: Keystone is good because hundreds of thousands of US Construction Workers think it should go through. That's like saying abolishing capital punishment is good because hundreds of child rapist-murderers think we should do so. It's like saying raising the minimum liability insurance requirements is good because all major insurance companies think it's good. It's like saying we should bed foxes with hens because the fox supports it.
This argument doesn't mean Keystone is bad; it means people who stand to profit from Keystone want it to happen. No. Fucking. Shit.
They respond to concerns by espousing emotional appeals or strawman arguments rather than meaningful rebuttals. Even if the technical concerns are unfounded, the company is untrustworthy.
But have we have had as much oil spilled per unit oil moved by pipelines? If you move 100gal and spill 1gal, versus moving 1000gal and spill 1gal, the second option is better.
Slashdot Mirror
You must make a water decision, friend.
Well you won't live long if you can't make a water decision.
I could tell people I'm MCSE or RHCE. Maybe a CAPM, or PMP. I have a CPA, perhaps.
Apparently some people have "The Knowledge." Can you imagine the context, how you'd deliver that line? "I have a certification in public sector financial auditing, the CPFA. Did your job require any certification or training?" "I have... *conspiratorial grin* The Knowledge."
Never put slang or idioms in quotes. It puts on airs, as f telling your audience that they and you are in an elite club who knows better.
That has nothing to do with Uber. There are other call cabs which do not need to maintain the standard of service that Black Cab does, but which are registered cabbies.
You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk.
No. Risks of the same type are identical. Management techniques change the risk.
Risk management terminology is annoying. A thing which may become a risk event is a risk. Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of a risk event. These are different things.
For example: A hard disk crash is a risk. The probability of a hard disk failing in a 5 year period is 50%. The severity of this risk is loss of data. In 5 years, you have a 50% risk of loss of data. Hard disk failure is your risk; a 50% risk of loss of data can be quantified as 0.5 * DATA_VALUE, which tells you how much risk this risk represents. This measure is not "how much hard disk failure", yet this measure and "hard disk failure" are both called risk.
You can reduce the probability of failure by adding RAID-5 with hot spare. The theoretical risk of a RAID-5 array failing completely in a short window is higher, but the risk crowds around the EOL of the drives (risk scales with age for hard drives, as they wear). Likewise, back-ups reduce the severity of loss to the severity of limited downtime.
The risks between Uber and Taxis are the same. The way those risks are managed--adjustments to their probability and severity--differ, and thus the amount of risk differs. Swimming in a 15 foot deep pool carries the same risk as swimming in a 30 foot deep pool: you may drown. In a 30 foot deep pool, people will have difficulty swimming down to you: the risk is greater, but it's the same risk.
Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.
Some google research invalidates this whole discussion anyway: You're covered by more insurance under Uber than you are in a traditional taxi. $1 million coverage if your Uber driver rams into a wall because he's retarded and drunk.
Black cabs can lower their standards by accepting charters via Uber. If black cabs want to maintain their standard of service, that's their business.
1. HIV can not be transmitted by food.
I mentioned cutting himself with a knife. HIV virons present in saliva are below the threshold of infection; HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.
3. Your scenario would be an accident and may even be covered by insurance.
You would still have HIV.
That is not what I said. I said most people know taxis have commercial insurance but don't know that many uber drivers don't.
This has never been a thing anyone I know has ever thought about. It's commonly accepted that you will sue the cab company in the event of incident. If the person is an individual, you can sue them; they may not have money to pay the lawsuit. Americans, at least, understand that businesses have unlimited money and can be forced to give you some of it.
It would make more sense, by the way, for cab companies with large fleets to *not* have insurance. Because the company has liability, the risk is spread across its entire fleet, and backed by the profit of all its operations. The cost of liability should be lower than the cost of insurance; if it is not, then the insurance agency will soon file bankruptcy. This is corrected by increasing premiums; sans-insurance, a cab fleet would require rates high enough to maintain funds on hand to cover that risk, which is an actual regulation in Europe (businesses are required to show their risks, their risk management plans, and funds to cover their managed risks when things go wrong).
By the way slugging is not widely known and only happens in a few cities. I don't understand how you don't see the difference between slugging and Uber. Slugging has no dispatch service, does not have requested end points and does not charge. It is very different than taxis and Uber who do all that.
Taxis can come to a place. This is not a risk.
Taxis involve paying money. This is a monetary risk of obvious magnitude (five bucks, twenty bucks, etc.).
Taxis involve getting into an unknown vehicle with an unknown individual. This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability; Uber controls this risk with traceability; Slugging may or may not be traceable.
All services carry the risk of bodily injury in collision. All systems control this risk by using licensed drivers (which leaves the risk of fraud: fake license, stolen tags) and by vehicular safety systems (airbags, seat belts). Consumers control this risk via lawsuit, with the assumption that a large business has money, and by personal medical insurance, with the assumption that they're covered for injury. In many cases, consumers also control this risk via uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance. These risk controls only address monetary risk; they do not address the risk of death or decreased quality of life.
No dice, jack. You can install Uber on your phone just the same.
"The Knowledge" is a stupid name. It tells me these people are haughty, arrogant dicks who I never want to deal with. Good customer service, a smile on their face, and piles of complaints the moment you're out of sight.
Google's car has zero incidents.
Dude, I ride city bus. I don't need the best possible service; I need to get from one place to another in reasonable time and cost.
You have the right to a safe ride from a professional driver. Call a black cab.
Did you mean to say the obligation to use a state-blessed professional driver?
First off, your driver is full of bullshit and the car is an annoying delay in my day.
Second, I would destroy your driver. Very few can keep up with me in any topic; those who can are usually field experts, and I often surpass them in one or two conversations by picking out logical flaws in their knowledge. Some quantum physicists have proven immune to that: when I find a logical flaw, they go, "Oh... good point, I need to look into that more" and either come back with an explanation of where that area of study is weak or with a correction or additional fact that was required that neither of us had.
I'm a parasitic engineer. I pry every bit of knowledge I can out of anyone who has an abundance, and then quickly assemble it with other knowledge to generate new conclusions. This is why libraries exist: scholars would take information from thousands of people who never knew each others' work, slap it together, and form new collections of information that explained previously unknown things. That's one way to generate science: take a concept partially understood by two groups and put the two groups together, and they generate a more complete--possibly full--understanding.
Randall Monroe does it too; he's a lot smarter than me, and so does it better. Look at the Password Day stuff: PGP came out with pass phrases in the 90s, and other people demand random passwords, and others advocate unrelated memory techniques like mnemonics and the Roman room. Randy slapped together pass phrases, password entropy, and such conceptual memory techniques, and emitted the best password advice: pick four or so random words, string them together, and visualize or explain it. The last part is implied: he shows a frame with a visualization and an explanation.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between the route selected by an Uber driver, and the route being selected by someone who is bound by a requirement to know what is the optimal route.
Google Maps says turn right.
Maybe some people don't want the best in the business. Maybe they just want a cheap ride.
Maryland. Not a no-fault state. PA is.
So being injured in an accident where the driver of the vehicle you are in is an exceptionally low risk. Even if it is a very low risk the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned with. The high consequences negate the low risk.
When you eat at any restaurant, you potentially consume food which was handled unsafely. The prep chef may have cut himself on a knife, and you could contract HIV from the food. Even if it is a very low risk, the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned about. Never eat food that you haven't cooked thoroughly and, if possible, exposed to gamma radiation.
The risk of no financial compensation should be enough. The other risks are also lower with taxis die to background checks and licensing. Background checks mean fewer felons driving.
Real-world data disagrees. Most crimes committed in this way are by people who have no previous arrest history relevant to the crime. For example: rapes often go unreported; many rapists have criminal histories including misdemeanors (graffiti, etc.) but not rape.
One major issue is that Uber looks very much like a taxi service while slugging looks completely different. People who use Uber can be easily duped into thinking it has the same protections as a taxi when it does not.
Most people accept taxi services because everyone else accepts taxi services. Your own argument supports this: most people are unaware that commercial driving involves special insurance, and are thus unaware of the loss of that insurance in certain cases. Slugging looks like a cheap ride; so does Uber.
Yes that presents a problem. Most pipeline freight is toxic; water would dissolve toxic material. Orange juice does not share this advantage.
I am not in a a no-fault state, yet I have $5000 Guest PIP.
Slugging is a free bus, yes. But Slugging involves a single driver--who may or may not have valid insurance or a valid license--carrying a single passenger. The driver is covered by no background check and no external registration service.
Your concern over insurance centers around collisions at fault of the driver. A collision at the fault of another driver covers an uninsured motorist and passengers through liability insurance. A collision at the fault of the driver which does not cause injury to the passenger would require no insurance coverage to protect the passenger. This particular risk is exceptionally low.
With both slugging and Uber, you risk riding with a driver who is any or all of uninsured, unlicensed, or criminal. With a taxi service, slugging, or Uber, you risk being injured in a collision or riding with a driver who is criminal. With a taxi service, your risk of no financial compensation in the event of injury is lower; all other risks are identical.
You have failed to differentiate the risk of slugging from the risk of Uber.
I did mention you can't transport water; it occurs to me you could refine transported water to potable or grey.
Perhaps we could transport energy. The system runs high-pressure fluids; we could apply pressure at one end and drive a turbine at a demarcation point. The system could transport biofuels or synthofuels--the stored output of excess hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal by combining air and water into hydrocarbons or other fuels.
This insurance may protect you even if you aren’t in your car. For example, if you were hit by an uninsured motorist while driving another person’s vehicle, walking across the street or riding your bike, the bodily injury portion of your insurance may help with your expenses in a covered incident.
Just one example. Insurance is strange. If a thief steals your bicycle from your car while you're in another state, your auto insurer will direct you to your homeowner's policy. Your homeowner's insurance will cover your bicycle. Uninsured motorist insurance often covers you in all situations.
When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.
It's often covered by Guest PIP.
When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.
Begging the question: how do you know this? Slug Lines and slugging in general have gone on for a long time with minimal incident. What sets Uber apart, in terms of risk, from traditional slugging?
First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?
You argued the passenger may not know the driver does not have insurance.
So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab?
,
Why should we force all of society to forgo the right to pay any person to drive them, without first having a third party validate the driver's insurance, driving record, criminal background, and mental state?
You assume the cab driver is uninsured. I assume the risk exists, and a person is deciding on that risk. When I call Yellow Cab Service for a traditional charter, I assume the risk that the cab driver might buttrape me--it happens--but we don't ban commercial taxi service.
You could walk outside and get hit by a bad driver under the same circumstances. Your own uninsured motorist insurance covers this, as well as the lack of insurance in situations you've described.
You're perceiving a risk much higher than actually exists. The only real risks are injury and crime. Injury falls onto personal medical insurance, personal uninsured motorist insurance, and so on, and besides has farther reaching implications than monetary cost; crime such as rape and murder occurs in regular commissioned taxis, and nobody has claimed it more prevalent on Uber-commissioned service.
The market pressure Uber causes provides positive benefit to society. Killing off Uber would cause bad things; which things are less bad?
Pipelines can ship solids, liquids, and gasses, Some pipelines are fully capable of transporting crude oil, then immediately transporting refined gasoline, then natural gas, then transporting coal, without huge maintenance cycles between. A client need only purchase transport from the shipper and their load will go through the pipeline.
It surprised me that you could switch between mediums without decommissioning, fully cleaning, and then recommissioning the pipeline at great expense. Quite the opposite, pipelines do allow for low-cost changeover of medium in normal operation. You cannot pipeline water or other food-grade materials in this way.
To be fair, Keystone deserves all the hate and fury it can attract. They go on TV talking about how misunderstood the Keystone project is, and spout irrelevant bullshit.
The worst claim I've heard: Keystone is good because hundreds of thousands of US Construction Workers think it should go through. That's like saying abolishing capital punishment is good because hundreds of child rapist-murderers think we should do so. It's like saying raising the minimum liability insurance requirements is good because all major insurance companies think it's good. It's like saying we should bed foxes with hens because the fox supports it.
This argument doesn't mean Keystone is bad; it means people who stand to profit from Keystone want it to happen. No. Fucking. Shit.
They respond to concerns by espousing emotional appeals or strawman arguments rather than meaningful rebuttals. Even if the technical concerns are unfounded, the company is untrustworthy.
But have we have had as much oil spilled per unit oil moved by pipelines? If you move 100gal and spill 1gal, versus moving 1000gal and spill 1gal, the second option is better.