The government is regulating the market at the moment, however Uber is trying to bypass the regulations the rest of the market have to adhere to.
Bypassing regulations that don't make sense in today's world. The solution is to reassess those regulations, rather than adhere to them blindly and stifle innovation and customer satisfaction.
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Only inferior in your opinion. You may value aspects of the service differently than others and price is certainly a factor.
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.
You have been conditioned to accept that drivers drive the optimal route, which they certainly can not do in all cases, so you are just as blind as an Uber passenger. However, the difference is that with an automated system the routes and times can be tracked so we can actually see (and perhaps improve on) performance.
Compete on even terms, get fully licensed drivers to sign up to Uber and let the proof be in the pudding.
There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't compete on even terms, as long as those terms aren't archaic. For example, the driver should have knowledge of the streets and routes, but that can be provided by a certified app. Or the driver should have to display photo, name and ID number, but that can be provided in the app rather than a laminated card stuck in the back of the cab,...
Try asking that cabbie to find that restaurant that you read about in the New York Times magazine, or a four-star hotel that is offering cheap rooms that night, or a park where you can throw a disc around,...
It is amazing the knowledge that some drivers have vs. an average person (especially a non-London cabbie). But you are overstating the case and you are biased by the times it has worked out for you. I would be surprised if a web savvy passenger couldn't outperform the average cabbie in such a contest today, however a key point is that cabbies aren't getting any smarter, but the internet and the apps are.
Likewise, the driver may know typical traffic patterns, but does he know about every accident in London? Does he know that the single lane shortcut he normally takes to save two minutes has a van double parked and is completely backed up? Map apps already know much of that, including predictive traffic patterns, and they also are getting better all the time.
it would still be cheaper to pay off the victims than to replace parts at the proper intervals.
If it's cheaper to pay off the victims then the system works. All that is required is that everyone goes into the contract understanding what they're getting.
The libertarians would say the answer to this is to choose an airline with the lowest fatality rate.
Depending on the cost you're willing to pay. Where's the problem?
I would still say it is useful to be able to ask for a destination by something like "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign"
There may be some cases where the cabbie knows more than the combined knowledge of the internet, but those cases are few and getting fewer all the time.
As a taxi driver in London I would be pretty pissed off if I had just spent three years of my life studying to pass a test and was laying out $500 a year to run my business and had to meet rigid standards because I was abiding by the law and others were allowed to ignore those same laws.
Things change, and with progress there are often people who lose out in the short run. It's okay to feel some compassion, even for people such as these drivers who made bad short term decisions. Does this justify disrupting an entire city and causing millions of dollars in damage? Depends on how screwed they are, and if they're that screwed then spending time in jail or being levied huge fines might be worth it.
Many of those problems are greatly diminished just by having a smartphone. Taking a taxi in third world countries is far, far safer and more fair than it once was.
...it's only just possible to get along without a car there. Few people that live there even attempt it, and fewer still succeed. So despite all the money put into public transit people still want their cars.
That's absolutely not true. There are many, many people who don't own or have access to a car in SF (maybe not people exactly like you, however). Even if it were true, SF residents (even ones like you) would want fewer total cars because the cost and limited value means that couples, families, roommates, etc. would share instead. SF is not nearly as dense as it could be and still be livable, it depends on what you're used to.
Should this application take off (a big "if") government's only practical response is to raise the price of parking to the point that turnover is so high that you can usually find a parking spot quickly without paying somebody to leave.
Their other choice is to make that kind of resale illegal on public streets (if it isn't already) and shut the app down.
That will be a really high price which will obliterate the goal of providing access to parking for people regardless of their economic situation.
It seems insane to give out $100 parking spaces to people who can't afford them. Instead give them the $100 in food, healthcare, education, a bus pass, etc. rather than wasting a valuable commodity on someone who doesn't value it.
Except there aren't perfectly good alternatives to replace it, at least not according to you. If you don't think that cable TV is at least marginally better than the alternatives then why do you even care when they air their shows? Cable TV is not the best option for everyone, but your arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny.
To your original point (i.e. that it is a vicious cycle), your limited resources shouldn't be a problem. Each investment you make should yield positive returns and you would be able to pull everyone out of poverty. The truck you bought for your nephew should allow him to get a better job, pay you back with interest and also help out everyone around him (with the occasional lift to a job interview, say).
unlesss...
As you say in your second point, there are many other issues, e.g. they have the ambition beaten out of them, all of which make them poor investments, as I stated. Note that I'm not claiming that they are genetically disadvantaged and that these people are forever beyond help, but that right now, it is not as simple as "they just need a break" which seemed to be the central point of your first post.
So to avoid a ticket you're saying I don't really need to have such a plate, just have a person who has a plate in the car with me? Does he just leave it conspicuously on his lap or does he need to waggle it provocatively?
And I didn't say that the challenges were trivial.
My point is that our sympathy is a limited resource (not to mention our time and money) and I would rather save it for people who are at least doing everything they can to help themselves. In your analogy I don't have much sympathy for those that sit around playing video games and eating junk food and then complain about that 10 foot wall that was staring them in the face. When I give them a ladder and a trampoline they'll still complain about it being unfair and still fail in a task that is now within their grasp.
I don't want to make this personal about the guy I was responding too, but IME people often make claims that these are good people who only need a chance, a little help. My rebuttal to that is to put your money where your mouth is. Invest in these people yourselves and if your theory is true you will be rewarded. If, like me, you know that these people are not going to meet the challenge with equal effort and integrity then you'll think happy thoughts, but keep your money (and your delusions) safe.
Certainly, but the case for coal declining 30 years ago was a little more clear than 1965 auto industry. You also have to admit that this isn't just a one time decision that a kid makes when he's 18. It could have been apparent for some that manufacturing jobs were going away in 1965, but by 1975 you had to really delude yourself if you thought there was endless potential. IMO, many gambled that unions and seniority would secure them, but that was bound to end up badly for many. This was perhaps the true Ponzi scheme.
I think that's a misperception common among white collar workers, that any blue collar job that was phased out was always a "dead end" job.
True, but it is not a misconception that I share. But in many ways it was an unsustainable model, certainly in a declining industry. Okay, I guess you noticed that too when I read further. But by dead end, I mean that your choices are limited, you don't grow, you don't have more choices, you don't learn new skills (other than a slightly different kind of drill or lathe), etc. Once you get stuck in that mindset and don't have to stretch to earn more you make it more difficult as time goes on.
Tech people are not immune to this. A small number can still find jobs with obsolescent technologies and as long as they make an economically sound decision I'm okay with it. But I'm not going to feel guilty about Fortran programmers who can't make a living in 2014 either and claim to be too old to retrain.
But, honestly, what high school graduate decades ago was supposed to figure that out when even leading economists hadn't?
It's easy to laugh at the dopes who were the last enrollees at buggy whip manufacturing school after the fact. It's not so easy to see it decades in advance when you were choosing your profession.
What economists couldn't see the buggy whip becoming obsolete in 1900 or 1910? Again you don't decide to make buggy whips in 1890 and then obstinately stick with it as the market declines. If you do, you probably are a dope, IMO, even if you defy the odds and get lucky.
Medicine is a special case of a profession which is subject to additional consumer protections above and beyond the regular market ones, for reasons relating to safety.
It's treated as a special case, but it shouldn't be. Money == Life, so in that regard this bug has caused more deaths than all but a very small percentage of doctors.
you can, however, sell 'medicine' to the public with no guarantee of its *efficacy* for a particular purpose, merely that it be safe. That's homeopathy.
And that should be covered under laws governing fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is regulating the market at the moment, however Uber is trying to bypass the regulations the rest of the market have to adhere to.
Bypassing regulations that don't make sense in today's world. The solution is to reassess those regulations, rather than adhere to them blindly and stifle innovation and customer satisfaction.
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Only inferior in your opinion. You may value aspects of the service differently than others and price is certainly a factor.
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.
You have been conditioned to accept that drivers drive the optimal route, which they certainly can not do in all cases, so you are just as blind as an Uber passenger. However, the difference is that with an automated system the routes and times can be tracked so we can actually see (and perhaps improve on) performance.
Compete on even terms, get fully licensed drivers to sign up to Uber and let the proof be in the pudding.
There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't compete on even terms, as long as those terms aren't archaic. For example, the driver should have knowledge of the streets and routes, but that can be provided by a certified app. Or the driver should have to display photo, name and ID number, but that can be provided in the app rather than a laminated card stuck in the back of the cab, ...
Try asking that cabbie to find that restaurant that you read about in the New York Times magazine, or a four-star hotel that is offering cheap rooms that night, or a park where you can throw a disc around, ...
It is amazing the knowledge that some drivers have vs. an average person (especially a non-London cabbie). But you are overstating the case and you are biased by the times it has worked out for you. I would be surprised if a web savvy passenger couldn't outperform the average cabbie in such a contest today, however a key point is that cabbies aren't getting any smarter, but the internet and the apps are.
Likewise, the driver may know typical traffic patterns, but does he know about every accident in London? Does he know that the single lane shortcut he normally takes to save two minutes has a van double parked and is completely backed up? Map apps already know much of that, including predictive traffic patterns, and they also are getting better all the time.
it would still be cheaper to pay off the victims than to replace parts at the proper intervals.
If it's cheaper to pay off the victims then the system works. All that is required is that everyone goes into the contract understanding what they're getting.
The libertarians would say the answer to this is to choose an airline with the lowest fatality rate.
Depending on the cost you're willing to pay. Where's the problem?
I would still say it is useful to be able to ask for a destination by something like "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign"
There may be some cases where the cabbie knows more than the combined knowledge of the internet, but those cases are few and getting fewer all the time.
As a taxi driver in London I would be pretty pissed off if I had just spent three years of my life studying to pass a test and was laying out $500 a year to run my business and had to meet rigid standards because I was abiding by the law and others were allowed to ignore those same laws.
Things change, and with progress there are often people who lose out in the short run. It's okay to feel some compassion, even for people such as these drivers who made bad short term decisions. Does this justify disrupting an entire city and causing millions of dollars in damage? Depends on how screwed they are, and if they're that screwed then spending time in jail or being levied huge fines might be worth it.
Many of those problems are greatly diminished just by having a smartphone. Taking a taxi in third world countries is far, far safer and more fair than it once was.
Cop was lying, in other words. Not what I want from public officials.
...it's only just possible to get along without a car there. Few people that live there even attempt it, and fewer still succeed. So despite all the money put into public transit people still want their cars.
That's absolutely not true. There are many, many people who don't own or have access to a car in SF (maybe not people exactly like you, however). Even if it were true, SF residents (even ones like you) would want fewer total cars because the cost and limited value means that couples, families, roommates, etc. would share instead. SF is not nearly as dense as it could be and still be livable, it depends on what you're used to.
Possessing drugs is not always a crime and when it is it's a much less serious crime. You're not too bright yourself, AC.
That's only because 'i kan reed' used double secret sarcasm in his own post to fool you.
I don't know any parking garage where you can leave and come back to the same space without having to pay again.
In some lots you pay for a spot by number, if that same spot is available when you come back you can use it again at no risk.
Should this application take off (a big "if") government's only practical response is to raise the price of parking to the point that turnover is so high that you can usually find a parking spot quickly without paying somebody to leave.
Their other choice is to make that kind of resale illegal on public streets (if it isn't already) and shut the app down.
That will be a really high price which will obliterate the goal of providing access to parking for people regardless of their economic situation.
It seems insane to give out $100 parking spaces to people who can't afford them. Instead give them the $100 in food, healthcare, education, a bus pass, etc. rather than wasting a valuable commodity on someone who doesn't value it.
Here's a better idea: an interactive map of parking spots that people can log as open/free so other people can find parking.
To a baseball bat wielding luddite that's not any better. Be careful what you ask for.
He warned me that most of the time, people get shot over these things.
Even in Florida that's not true.
That 99.9% makes it far safer than a human driver.
Sure, why bother trying to solve the easier problems first? Go straight to solving the most complex cases instead.
Adjusting their position every 70 years? This kind of flip-flopping would not have been tolerated in the George W. Bush administration.
Except there aren't perfectly good alternatives to replace it, at least not according to you. If you don't think that cable TV is at least marginally better than the alternatives then why do you even care when they air their shows? Cable TV is not the best option for everyone, but your arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny.
DVRs solve your problem with watching cable TV in a narrow time slot, making them not obsolete and certainly not stupid.
To your original point (i.e. that it is a vicious cycle), your limited resources shouldn't be a problem. Each investment you make should yield positive returns and you would be able to pull everyone out of poverty. The truck you bought for your nephew should allow him to get a better job, pay you back with interest and also help out everyone around him (with the occasional lift to a job interview, say).
unlesss...
As you say in your second point, there are many other issues, e.g. they have the ambition beaten out of them, all of which make them poor investments, as I stated. Note that I'm not claiming that they are genetically disadvantaged and that these people are forever beyond help, but that right now, it is not as simple as "they just need a break" which seemed to be the central point of your first post.
So to avoid a ticket you're saying I don't really need to have such a plate, just have a person who has a plate in the car with me? Does he just leave it conspicuously on his lap or does he need to waggle it provocatively?
And I didn't say that the challenges were trivial.
My point is that our sympathy is a limited resource (not to mention our time and money) and I would rather save it for people who are at least doing everything they can to help themselves. In your analogy I don't have much sympathy for those that sit around playing video games and eating junk food and then complain about that 10 foot wall that was staring them in the face. When I give them a ladder and a trampoline they'll still complain about it being unfair and still fail in a task that is now within their grasp.
I don't want to make this personal about the guy I was responding too, but IME people often make claims that these are good people who only need a chance, a little help. My rebuttal to that is to put your money where your mouth is. Invest in these people yourselves and if your theory is true you will be rewarded. If, like me, you know that these people are not going to meet the challenge with equal effort and integrity then you'll think happy thoughts, but keep your money (and your delusions) safe.
I think there are degrees to this...
Certainly, but the case for coal declining 30 years ago was a little more clear than 1965 auto industry. You also have to admit that this isn't just a one time decision that a kid makes when he's 18. It could have been apparent for some that manufacturing jobs were going away in 1965, but by 1975 you had to really delude yourself if you thought there was endless potential. IMO, many gambled that unions and seniority would secure them, but that was bound to end up badly for many. This was perhaps the true Ponzi scheme.
I think that's a misperception common among white collar workers, that any blue collar job that was phased out was always a "dead end" job.
True, but it is not a misconception that I share. But in many ways it was an unsustainable model, certainly in a declining industry. Okay, I guess you noticed that too when I read further. But by dead end, I mean that your choices are limited, you don't grow, you don't have more choices, you don't learn new skills (other than a slightly different kind of drill or lathe), etc. Once you get stuck in that mindset and don't have to stretch to earn more you make it more difficult as time goes on.
Tech people are not immune to this. A small number can still find jobs with obsolescent technologies and as long as they make an economically sound decision I'm okay with it. But I'm not going to feel guilty about Fortran programmers who can't make a living in 2014 either and claim to be too old to retrain.
But, honestly, what high school graduate decades ago was supposed to figure that out when even leading economists hadn't?
It's easy to laugh at the dopes who were the last enrollees at buggy whip manufacturing school after the fact. It's not so easy to see it decades in advance when you were choosing your profession.
What economists couldn't see the buggy whip becoming obsolete in 1900 or 1910? Again you don't decide to make buggy whips in 1890 and then obstinately stick with it as the market declines. If you do, you probably are a dope, IMO, even if you defy the odds and get lucky.
Medicine is a special case of a profession which is subject to additional consumer protections above and beyond the regular market ones, for reasons relating to safety.
It's treated as a special case, but it shouldn't be. Money == Life, so in that regard this bug has caused more deaths than all but a very small percentage of doctors.
you can, however, sell 'medicine' to the public with no guarantee of its *efficacy* for a particular purpose, merely that it be safe. That's homeopathy.
And that should be covered under laws governing fraud.
They were also born white and male in 20th century America, so I'm going to save at least some of my sympathy for others.