At that point they either enforce on everyone or the law gets rewritten.
Or they suddenly and mysteriously discover you've got CP on your PC after they conduct a no-knock raid where, sadly, you were 'accidentally' fatally shot multiple times by a 'weapon malfunction' affecting the entire entry team.
Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
[Mr. Burns, 'steepling' his fingers] "Excellent!"
That's a huge 'tell' for me right there, that the solution being pushed is simply a wealth-transfer system that has no actual effect on CO2 (like new 'scrubber' tech, alt. energy sources, etc).
That tells me that the 'problem' is that there's money out there that they've just gotten around to figuring out how to steal with "OMGClimateChangeWe'reAllGonnaDieGiveUsAllYourMoneyQuick&STFUYouHeretic!!"
Remember Propaganda was recently LEGALIZED under Obama...
Propaganda has never been illegal.
Domestic use of the various US intelligence and law enforcement services was never illegal as in it being classed as a regular criminal act like theft, but there was a law on the books preventing domestic use of US government propaganda tools contained within the Smith-Mundt Act.
"The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union.
Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years."
The point he made was generally correct, except it was both parties in both Houses of the US Congress plus Obama. Once again, when it counts, both US political parties are in total agreement: "Screw the people!"
But the important thing is don't let the wrong lizard get in!
liability insurance and some kind of mini wage system are needed for the fake 1099's
There needs to be some kind of mini wage so they can't be pulled under it by.
Can't be pulled down by being forced to rent / buy tools or software needed for them to work. Can't be forced to come into some place in hopes there being work for them with them being sent home or forced to wait with no pay. Can't be on call with you must be open to come with in a short time with no pay Can't be forced to buy / rent uniforms. Can't be charged pay roll fees and other back office fees. Can't be forced to only use an very limited range of trucks / cars / other tools at there own cost. Can't be forced to work with no / very low Mileage / parking / tolls reimbursement. Can't be charged for any damage over any amount that would pull someone under min wage for damage to company cars / tools / lost costumers / etc. Can't be forced to bear full liability for any lawsuits / damages to others.
What you describe isn't a contracting gig, it's more like a full-time public-sector unionized job or a civil-service government job.
You're pretty much saying by the conditions you set that you want the same old taxi system with regular employee drivers. That's exactly what nobody, not Uber/Lyft, not the potential passengers, nor the at-will drivers, want. If they did, they'd be using/driving the existing taxi systems.
Interesting question. "Car Service" is,at least in the US, have always been one of those business that are not defined as Taxi's. Car Service, have been 1 to many employee's. They are regulated by the limousine side of the Taxi and Limousine as a single payment ( including taxes and tolls ) per destination. But payment is made to the driver, after the trip, and those companies must pay drivers a salary, not a percentage of a fare. If the company has more than 50 employees ( including office, personnel, mechanics, drivers, etc.) then they have to also provide healthcare
In nearly every place in the US where taxi and car services operate under regulations, car services are forbidden from picking up street-side passengers (being hailed), and as Uber/Lyft are both "ride-hailing apps" that sort of leaves us back at square one with the government preventing the demand by passengers for a better and more modern alternative to the 19th century taxi company/employed-driver model that currently does not meet demands and expectations from passengers in multiple ways but who are left without choice, and from those currently un- or under-employed for additional income to make ends meet in a job market that's getting increasingly thin and wages stagnant.
There has to be a middle ground that doesn't basically destroy the ability for people to innovate solutions to their own problems with honest work outside of a crumbling 1940s/50s industrial-era hourly-wage/salary, bosses, HR departments, 401k savings plan, and medical insurance package employment model and help people & families living on the edge financially garner a bit more income, while simultaneously improving transportation infrastructure, further reducing the incentive to own automobiles.
There *can* be a 'win/win' in this, but I fear politics-as-usual from both extremes will end up handing everyone a 'lose/lose'...which, sadly, is also 'usual' these days.
I think some old dudes in silly white wigs a long time ago said something about political parties becoming dangerous. But who listens to dudes in silly white wigs, amirite?
No, what I believe they are saying is that if you work for a company, that collects the money, gives you your jobs, set standards for drivers, etc., then you are an employee of that company. You can buy a car, advertise all over the place, have the correct insurance, and you are a one person company. It has been going on for a long time, its called "Car Service".
Congratulations! We may not agree but you are, so far, the only one who has put forth a reasoned and logical argument rather than unreasoned, knee-jerk reactions and childlike insults.
So for you it depends on how much of the infrastructure (electronic payment transfers, ride requests, etc) that Uber/Lyft provides drivers?
If so, how much is too much and how much is too little?
*This* is the kind of discussion that should be occurring instead of an all out, scorched-Earth effort to ban services like Uber/Lyft. It's apparent there is a demand on both ends not being met, both passengers and drivers, for an alternative to traditional taxi/ride services. It needs to be addressed but those who profit from the status quo want it ignored and those who try to fill the demand punished.
...And we hear from Cap'n Ad-Hom who has nothing at all constructive or factual to add but simply couldn't resist demonstrating his teenage level of maturity for the world to witness in all it's glory!
Not prey on people desperate to make next months rent, so they spend their free time driving for Uber....even if gas and maintenance costs push their annual earnings well below minimum wage.
So if they are unable to find a regular job as an employee at government mandated minimum wage then they should not be allowed to earn *anything at all* then? When you're already desperate and starving anything is better than nothing. It's very possible they could make more working a couple of these "abusive" self-employment gigs than they could working a minimum-wage job. Why do you think you have any right to tell others how to make a living if the activity/product is not illegal?
Nobody chooses to be a low paid serf, you Randian nutjob, any more than you've "chosen" not to be a billionaire.
I disagree, when we're talking about a place with as much opportunity as the US or UK. If you choose to goof off and skip school, can't read or do math above a 3rd-grade level, etc, then don't be surprised you dig ditches for a living and are unemployed a lot. I chose not to be a billionaire because I didn't want to put in the kind of effort, dedication, and in these times, stoop as low as one needs to acquire such a fortune.
However, this will bring about interesting wage negotiations, in the UK and abroad.
If by "wage negotiations" you mean that the drivers that used to drive for services like Uber/Lyft *and* all the other drivers that Uber/Lyft had or would screen out will simply start listing themselves individually on a website/social media site/etc and thus removing another layer of certification/accountability for people choosing not to use a traditional overpriced, late-to-arrive, dirty, smelly, poorly-maintained city taxi service with rude and obnoxious drivers who still expect a handsome tip after insulting and leering at your wife and watching you load and unload your own luggage while he sits and smokes a cig....
What they're actually saying is that UK citizens are not free to enter into individual contracts for labor or service, they may only be employees of a business/corporation. Apparently the leaders in the UK must not believe UK citizens are intelligent enough to avoid signing themselves into slavery or something.
As has already been mentioned, this is exactly what all existing audio recording hardware does. Anti-aliasing filters are placed in the analog path, before digitization, and they're normally set to cut off around 20Khz, since that's the upper limit of human hearing. Leaving these filters out results in unusable audio, they are an essential component of any analog-to-digital conversion of any sort. Unless you're talking about pro-level audio recording hardware, there is no way consumer cellphones can pick up actual "ultrasound". They can pick up signals encoded in audible audio in other ways, but that couldn't be filtered out, and it isn't ultrasound.
I saw the TFA and that was my first thought, that the author/editor or somebody either screwed up or went for click-bait.
I may well be wrong, but IMHO it's probably some form of digital encoding riding on the normal audio at relative levels that are inaudible to humans but easily detected by an app or device software designed to detect and use it and all well within the audio bandwidth specs of the devices involved.
But, that's a lot more pedestrian and boring tech-wise, and so probably doesn't generate enough clicks.
but not general warrants, they are expressly forbidden.
You may think so. And it may have been the writers' intent. But the decision about what The Constitution means is relegated to (usually) 9 individuals (currently 8). I am going to go ahead and assume (despite the thin veil of anonymity) that you are not one of those individuals. And until their majority states otherwise in a court case, the choice to use such warrants remains available to the executive.
Oh, I'm aware that the federal government is using general warrants in complete violation of the US Constitution while trying to avoid any cases making it to a SCOTUS ruling, at least until they have the court comfortably packed with friendly justices.
That is the danger of allowing 9 politically-appointed, unelected individuals to be the ultimate power to "interpret" the Constitution, as what the definition and scope of "interpretation" is and encompasses always broadens and becomes increasingly politically and ideologically biased.
People are increasingly losing faith and respect for the legal system and the government as a whole as the weight of political corruption and cronyism, which scales proportionately with the power, size, & scope of government, becomes increasingly worse. History shows that when that faith and respect drops below a certain point among enough people, really, really bad things happen. In other countries it has often led to violent revolts and revolutions. No nation whose people do not as a whole generally believe in its' leaders and government can remain standing.
Constitution restriction doesn't apply here as actions are done under authorized warrant for law enforcement. That is explicitly allowed.
*Individual*, very specific, and narrow warrants yes, but not general warrants, they are expressly forbidden.
However, our current crop of politicians, bureaucrats, federal judges, and TLAs seem to be of the opinion that they can violate the US Constitution with impunity by waving a 'national security' flag around. Sorry, but national security, illegal drug traffickers, child porn, copyright infringement, etc etc...none of these trump the Constitution and civil rights.
Government no longer honors the limitations to its' power and scope set out in its' founding document which are the only things which give it legitimacy.
The true irony here is that if you act as you suggest you end up being a massive leech on society yourself - exactly what you accuse the government of doing! It's funny how all these "step outside society" fantasies always depend on stealing from someone else - "when society falls apart I've got mine and I've got a lot of guns so I can get yours too".
WTF are you talking about, "step outside society"? Do construction trades like plumbers who contract a construction job, or a house painter, or a thousand other occupations where a skilled person contracts their labor and skills on terms they negotiate, "step outside society"? There must be millions "outside society". Is it your position then that they should all be forbidden by law from contracting?
Dude, seriously, you really need to take off the Collectivist-colored glasses and take a good look around.
Hear, hear. The title should be "Workers lose right to be contract employees, set own hours and working conditions."
I wonder if the whole employee/contractor thing is a red herring. As near as I can tell, the key to ride/home/tool/bike/whatever-sharing businesses is they don't have to bring capital to the table. Yeah, it would be more expensive to pay benefits to drivers, but that's not the real win. The real win is the drivers bring their own cars so Uber doesn't have to buy them.
Note this is a win all around. Customers win (low prices), the companies win (low capital structure), the drivers/loaners win (incremental income from idle assets). The only one who loses is the competition.
Totally agree on the point that it is individual workers who are losing the right to contract their labor for hire for terms they define.
I wanted to add to your last line which I highlighted. It's not only competitors losing out, possibly even more important and a larger motivation for attacking Uber/Lyft and other systems for independent contracting, is that the government doesn't get that all-important ability to deduct from a paycheck before you see it, nor be able to garnish it, nor track your income per pay period.
Possibly even more importantly from the governments' perspective of maintaining control, it prevents people from having to actually calculate and pay taxes owed as it is much easier for the working population to not consciously realize just how much government takes when it comes out of a paycheck before they see it.
I believe that if taxes had to be paid like any other bill rather than being deducted automatically from a paycheck, many more people would be up in arms about high tax rates. Government most definitely doesn't want to possibly be forced to lower taxes. Lower taxes = less cash income to the government and less power and control over individuals and businesses.
I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance.
If they did, the coroner's office would need to open a new branch at Fort Marcy Park.
A cashless system could easily stop individuals from any purchase deemed unsuitable or unnecessary. Do you want that?
What a boon to those who wish to make healthy lifestyle choices the only available choice! "I'm sorry Sir, that Mt. Dew purchase has been declined by the payment system as your BMI data shared from Obamacare insurers disqualifies you from softdrinks."
I noticed that two of the three initial sites are train stations, not airports. I guess building entrances can't be far behind.
The TSA has had roving teams checking passengers on metro/city and Greyhound buses. Building entrances will likely be next, yes, post offices etc, then expanded to malls and stores. Soon there will be checkpoints for pedestrians. What, you thought you could risk National Security by walking down the street minding your own business? Terrorist! Gulag...err...Guantanamo for you!
When you give government all these powers to do all this social-engineering and other crap, you can expect that they will be corrupted and conspire against the people with those with wealth and power in the private sector. It's human nature and why the founders did not want the government having the sort of scope and power it does today. The results speak for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me, which state are Lincolnshire and Goole in?
Mostly solid, with some liquid and gaseous thrown in.
Oh, and confusion and frustration as well.
Such a sad state.
Strat
At that point they either enforce on everyone or the law gets rewritten.
Or they suddenly and mysteriously discover you've got CP on your PC after they conduct a no-knock raid where, sadly, you were 'accidentally' fatally shot multiple times by a 'weapon malfunction' affecting the entire entry team.
Strat
Just give them an IQ test and get it over with. That's basically the same thing in a high percentage of cases.
Won't work.
If they tried that in the Washington, D.C./Alexandria, VA area they'd end up with a negative number that would crash their cost calculating algorithm.
Strat
Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
[Mr. Burns, 'steepling' his fingers] "Excellent!"
That's a huge 'tell' for me right there, that the solution being pushed is simply a wealth-transfer system that has no actual effect on CO2 (like new 'scrubber' tech, alt. energy sources, etc).
That tells me that the 'problem' is that there's money out there that they've just gotten around to figuring out how to steal with "OMGClimateChangeWe'reAllGonnaDieGiveUsAllYourMoneyQuick&STFUYouHeretic!!"
Strat
Domestic use of the various US intelligence and law enforcement services' propaganda resources**
I have no clue why that bit got dropped. I'd typed it and previewed it twice.
Oh, well...
Domestic use of the various US intelligence and law enforcement services was never illegal as in it being classed as a regular criminal act like theft, but there was a law on the books preventing domestic use of US government propaganda tools contained within the Smith-Mundt Act.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
"The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union.
Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years."
The point he made was generally correct, except it was both parties in both Houses of the US Congress plus Obama. Once again, when it counts, both US political parties are in total agreement: "Screw the people!"
But the important thing is don't let the wrong lizard get in!
Right?
Strat
liability insurance and some kind of mini wage system are needed for the fake 1099's
There needs to be some kind of mini wage so they can't be pulled under it by.
Can't be pulled down by being forced to rent / buy tools or software needed for them to work.
Can't be forced to come into some place in hopes there being work for them with them being sent home or forced to wait with no pay.
Can't be on call with you must be open to come with in a short time with no pay
Can't be forced to buy / rent uniforms.
Can't be charged pay roll fees and other back office fees.
Can't be forced to only use an very limited range of trucks / cars / other tools at there own cost.
Can't be forced to work with no / very low Mileage / parking / tolls reimbursement.
Can't be charged for any damage over any amount that would pull someone under min wage for damage to company cars / tools / lost costumers / etc.
Can't be forced to bear full liability for any lawsuits / damages to others.
What you describe isn't a contracting gig, it's more like a full-time public-sector unionized job or a civil-service government job.
You're pretty much saying by the conditions you set that you want the same old taxi system with regular employee drivers. That's exactly what nobody, not Uber/Lyft, not the potential passengers, nor the at-will drivers, want. If they did, they'd be using/driving the existing taxi systems.
Strat
How do you manage to be wrong in multiple ways on both points you claim?
Simple! Like this: https://youtu.be/W8qcccZy03s
Strat
Interesting question. "Car Service" is,at least in the US, have always been one of those business that are not defined as Taxi's. Car Service, have been 1 to many employee's. They are regulated by the limousine side of the Taxi and Limousine as a single payment ( including taxes and tolls ) per destination. But payment is made to the driver, after the trip, and those companies must pay drivers a salary, not a percentage of a fare. If the company has more than 50 employees ( including office, personnel, mechanics, drivers, etc.) then they have to also provide healthcare
In nearly every place in the US where taxi and car services operate under regulations, car services are forbidden from picking up street-side passengers (being hailed), and as Uber/Lyft are both "ride-hailing apps" that sort of leaves us back at square one with the government preventing the demand by passengers for a better and more modern alternative to the 19th century taxi company/employed-driver model that currently does not meet demands and expectations from passengers in multiple ways but who are left without choice, and from those currently un- or under-employed for additional income to make ends meet in a job market that's getting increasingly thin and wages stagnant.
There has to be a middle ground that doesn't basically destroy the ability for people to innovate solutions to their own problems with honest work outside of a crumbling 1940s/50s industrial-era hourly-wage/salary, bosses, HR departments, 401k savings plan, and medical insurance package employment model and help people & families living on the edge financially garner a bit more income, while simultaneously improving transportation infrastructure, further reducing the incentive to own automobiles.
There *can* be a 'win/win' in this, but I fear politics-as-usual from both extremes will end up handing everyone a 'lose/lose'...which, sadly, is also 'usual' these days.
I think some old dudes in silly white wigs a long time ago said something about political parties becoming dangerous. But who listens to dudes in silly white wigs, amirite?
Strat
No, what I believe they are saying is that if you work for a company, that collects the money, gives you your jobs, set standards for drivers, etc., then you are an employee of that company.
You can buy a car, advertise all over the place, have the correct insurance, and you are a one person company. It has been going on for a long time, its called "Car Service".
Congratulations! We may not agree but you are, so far, the only one who has put forth a reasoned and logical argument rather than unreasoned, knee-jerk reactions and childlike insults.
So for you it depends on how much of the infrastructure (electronic payment transfers, ride requests, etc) that Uber/Lyft provides drivers?
If so, how much is too much and how much is too little?
*This* is the kind of discussion that should be occurring instead of an all out, scorched-Earth effort to ban services like Uber/Lyft. It's apparent there is a demand on both ends not being met, both passengers and drivers, for an alternative to traditional taxi/ride services. It needs to be addressed but those who profit from the status quo want it ignored and those who try to fill the demand punished.
Strat
No, cute and moronic.
...And we hear from Cap'n Ad-Hom who has nothing at all constructive or factual to add but simply couldn't resist demonstrating his teenage level of maturity for the world to witness in all it's glory!
Thanks Cap'n!
Strat
Bwhahahaha. That's incredibly cute.
Hey cute AND accurate, just like me! What's not to love, eh? ;)
Strat
Not prey on people desperate to make next months rent, so they spend their free time driving for Uber....even if gas and maintenance costs push their annual earnings well below minimum wage.
So if they are unable to find a regular job as an employee at government mandated minimum wage then they should not be allowed to earn *anything at all* then? When you're already desperate and starving anything is better than nothing. It's very possible they could make more working a couple of these "abusive" self-employment gigs than they could working a minimum-wage job. Why do you think you have any right to tell others how to make a living if the activity/product is not illegal?
Nobody chooses to be a low paid serf, you Randian nutjob, any more than you've "chosen" not to be a billionaire.
I disagree, when we're talking about a place with as much opportunity as the US or UK. If you choose to goof off and skip school, can't read or do math above a 3rd-grade level, etc, then don't be surprised you dig ditches for a living and are unemployed a lot. I chose not to be a billionaire because I didn't want to put in the kind of effort, dedication, and in these times, stoop as low as one needs to acquire such a fortune.
Strat
However, this will bring about interesting wage negotiations, in the UK and abroad.
If by "wage negotiations" you mean that the drivers that used to drive for services like Uber/Lyft *and* all the other drivers that Uber/Lyft had or would screen out will simply start listing themselves individually on a website/social media site/etc and thus removing another layer of certification/accountability for people choosing not to use a traditional overpriced, late-to-arrive, dirty, smelly, poorly-maintained city taxi service with rude and obnoxious drivers who still expect a handsome tip after insulting and leering at your wife and watching you load and unload your own luggage while he sits and smokes a cig....
Then, yes!
Strat
What they're actually saying is that UK citizens are not free to enter into individual contracts for labor or service, they may only be employees of a business/corporation. Apparently the leaders in the UK must not believe UK citizens are intelligent enough to avoid signing themselves into slavery or something.
Strat
As has already been mentioned, this is exactly what all existing audio recording hardware does. Anti-aliasing filters are placed in the analog path, before digitization, and they're normally set to cut off around 20Khz, since that's the upper limit of human hearing. Leaving these filters out results in unusable audio, they are an essential component of any analog-to-digital conversion of any sort. Unless you're talking about pro-level audio recording hardware, there is no way consumer cellphones can pick up actual "ultrasound". They can pick up signals encoded in audible audio in other ways, but that couldn't be filtered out, and it isn't ultrasound.
I saw the TFA and that was my first thought, that the author/editor or somebody either screwed up or went for click-bait.
I may well be wrong, but IMHO it's probably some form of digital encoding riding on the normal audio at relative levels that are inaudible to humans but easily detected by an app or device software designed to detect and use it and all well within the audio bandwidth specs of the devices involved.
But, that's a lot more pedestrian and boring tech-wise, and so probably doesn't generate enough clicks.
Strat
Oh, I'm aware that the federal government is using general warrants in complete violation of the US Constitution while trying to avoid any cases making it to a SCOTUS ruling, at least until they have the court comfortably packed with friendly justices.
That is the danger of allowing 9 politically-appointed, unelected individuals to be the ultimate power to "interpret" the Constitution, as what the definition and scope of "interpretation" is and encompasses always broadens and becomes increasingly politically and ideologically biased.
People are increasingly losing faith and respect for the legal system and the government as a whole as the weight of political corruption and cronyism, which scales proportionately with the power, size, & scope of government, becomes increasingly worse. History shows that when that faith and respect drops below a certain point among enough people, really, really bad things happen. In other countries it has often led to violent revolts and revolutions. No nation whose people do not as a whole generally believe in its' leaders and government can remain standing.
Strat
Constitution restriction doesn't apply here as actions are done under authorized warrant for law enforcement. That is explicitly allowed.
*Individual*, very specific, and narrow warrants yes, but not general warrants, they are expressly forbidden.
However, our current crop of politicians, bureaucrats, federal judges, and TLAs seem to be of the opinion that they can violate the US Constitution with impunity by waving a 'national security' flag around. Sorry, but national security, illegal drug traffickers, child porn, copyright infringement, etc etc...none of these trump the Constitution and civil rights.
Government no longer honors the limitations to its' power and scope set out in its' founding document which are the only things which give it legitimacy.
Strat
The true irony here is that if you act as you suggest you end up being a massive leech on society yourself - exactly what you accuse the government of doing!
It's funny how all these "step outside society" fantasies always depend on stealing from someone else - "when society falls apart I've got mine and I've got a lot of guns so I can get yours too".
WTF are you talking about, "step outside society"? Do construction trades like plumbers who contract a construction job, or a house painter, or a thousand other occupations where a skilled person contracts their labor and skills on terms they negotiate, "step outside society"? There must be millions "outside society". Is it your position then that they should all be forbidden by law from contracting?
Dude, seriously, you really need to take off the Collectivist-colored glasses and take a good look around.
Strat
Hear, hear. The title should be "Workers lose right to be contract employees, set own hours and working conditions."
I wonder if the whole employee/contractor thing is a red herring. As near as I can tell, the key to ride/home/tool/bike/whatever-sharing businesses is they don't have to bring capital to the table. Yeah, it would be more expensive to pay benefits to drivers, but that's not the real win. The real win is the drivers bring their own cars so Uber doesn't have to buy them.
Note this is a win all around. Customers win (low prices), the companies win (low capital structure), the drivers/loaners win (incremental income from idle assets). The only one who loses is the competition.
Totally agree on the point that it is individual workers who are losing the right to contract their labor for hire for terms they define.
I wanted to add to your last line which I highlighted. It's not only competitors losing out, possibly even more important and a larger motivation for attacking Uber/Lyft and other systems for independent contracting, is that the government doesn't get that all-important ability to deduct from a paycheck before you see it, nor be able to garnish it, nor track your income per pay period.
Possibly even more importantly from the governments' perspective of maintaining control, it prevents people from having to actually calculate and pay taxes owed as it is much easier for the working population to not consciously realize just how much government takes when it comes out of a paycheck before they see it.
I believe that if taxes had to be paid like any other bill rather than being deducted automatically from a paycheck, many more people would be up in arms about high tax rates. Government most definitely doesn't want to possibly be forced to lower taxes. Lower taxes = less cash income to the government and less power and control over individuals and businesses.
Strat
I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance.
If they did, the coroner's office would need to open a new branch at Fort Marcy Park.
Strat
...leaving Kaine as the President-elect.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Strat
A cashless system could easily stop individuals from any purchase deemed unsuitable or unnecessary. Do you want that?
What a boon to those who wish to make healthy lifestyle choices the only available choice! "I'm sorry Sir, that Mt. Dew purchase has been declined by the payment system as your BMI data shared from Obamacare insurers disqualifies you from softdrinks."
NYC would *love* this!
Strat
I noticed that two of the three initial sites are train stations, not airports. I guess building entrances can't be far behind.
The TSA has had roving teams checking passengers on metro/city and Greyhound buses. Building entrances will likely be next, yes, post offices etc, then expanded to malls and stores. Soon there will be checkpoints for pedestrians. What, you thought you could risk National Security by walking down the street minding your own business? Terrorist! Gulag...err...Guantanamo for you!
Strat
[Fascism Intensifies]
When you give government all these powers to do all this social-engineering and other crap, you can expect that they will be corrupted and conspire against the people with those with wealth and power in the private sector. It's human nature and why the founders did not want the government having the sort of scope and power it does today. The results speak for themselves.
Strat