I think you'll find these kind of incidents also happen with regular cab drivers. Newspaper articles are often not a good source of data for these kind of stats.
Isn't this simple? You have two people. A driver. A passenger. The driver wants to drive the passenger from A to B and the passenenger wants to pay the driver. What moral right does anyone have to prevent them from entering into their own contract? The state claims safety yet the state doesn't seem to care if I climb mountains which is statistically far riskier. We live in a bizzar kafkaesque disytopia when people are regulating just for the sake of having regulation jobs. Even if Uber is not safe isn't it up to the consumer to decide how much risk to take?
This is a free zero cost medium. The spectrum should be opnened up to everyone with power being the only limitation. We are told over and over the spectrum needs to be regulated because of interference yet for all intents and purposes there is nothing in physics that limits information density until you get to the quantum level. Wireless carriers have zero incentive to combat interference when they have a monopoly on the spectrum. They just charge more. It's also obvious to many engineers that mesh networks are more efficient. But mesh networks decentralize authority and therefore affect revenue so meshing is not likely to be popular with incumbent carriers. All those billions will ultimately be paid for be the consumer while the incumbents have zero incentive to innovate. We should take the spectrum away from business people and give it to engineers who can actually do something with it.
Interesting how we think we are free because we can say what we want. Yet we are not free. We cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. I mean you cannot freely buy any product directly from the manufacturer anywhere in the world. Why not? Is it a public safety issue? Is it protecting jobs? Or is it an easy revenue stream for those in power?
Who cares if Uber _is_ a cab company? What moral authority does the state have to stop consenting adults from forming their own contracts and doing business with each other?
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live....
Most laws are within the confines you set. So what's your point?
But the law that gives the state the authority to restrict carpooling doesn't appear to be within those confines. Consenting adults should have the right to interact and do business with each other as they want without having to get permission first. .
Governments today restrict trade just like the church used to restrict speech. We think we are free because we can say what we want but we are not free. We cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. Freedom to trade is as much a threat to the authority of the modern Hobbesian state as speech was to the church when Galileo was alive. That's why you need permission to operate a carpool. In the future, when the world is more enlightened, freedom to trade will be as much a basic right as speech is today. No higher authority should be able to make it illegal for consenting adults to interact with one another.
The judges in these kind of cases are appointed by the executive, the same branch of government they are supposed to keep in check. This is a problem because the executive has a tendency to appoint only judges with views similar to itself. So it's not surprising these judges often rule in favor of the executive.
The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can.
I respectfully disagree. The US naturally supports its own interests wherever it can. United States support of authoritarian regimes. No matter how bad Sharia law might be the Islamic State guys are tired of foreign interference. They've had enough of everything that's happened after Sykes-Picot and they want the right to self determination. It's no wonder they have so much internal support.
I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right. People should be free to trade with whoever they want, when they want, without the need to get permission from some higher authority. Why are we still living under the ecclesiastical guardianship of a hobbesian leviathanical kafkaesque dystopia? Whatever happened to the Enlightenment?
This is perhaps a fertile and opportune time for an engineering solution. We should open up a chunk of the airways to the public and let everyone hack at it until something is found that works for everyone. People always talk about interference but I'm not aware of any limitations in physics on information density other than quantum bits. Other than the normal FCC power restrictions anyone should be able to use the airways. The current system doesn't innovate when it comes to interference because it doesn't have to. There's no incentive. There's no reason why every wireless device can't talk to every other wireless device in a mesh network other than FCC restrictions. Currently your iPhone or Android can talk to a tower but it can't talk to others around it on the same frequencies. Why not? The current system is inefficient. Is it not?
Here is a list of ingredients for an experiment.
1. Some bandwidth. Get this at the next FCC auction. Crowdfund it.
2. A way to modify out phones s they can talk to each other.
3. Some mesh protocols so people can form networks.
If the tragedy of the commons applies only to finite resources then the above network should be a lot more efficient than the current one. Remember now, Verizon, et al. It's just an experiment. You guys are engineers too, right?
Why hasn't the price of data centers come way down with new storage technology? For example, why not keep a few terabytes of offline storage in your desk drawer instead of paying $$$ for tapes? If tapes are more reliable then what level of duplication is needed for disks to be as reliable? This combined with the multiplier effects of no_AC_necessary solid-state... why not big data center in small closet? If the data center is inefficient, why is it still around? Latin me that, my trinity scholard.
You think you are free because you can say what you want but you are not free. You cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For some reason freedom to trade was never considered a basic human right. From a functionalist perspective trade is to the modern state what speech was to the church. Both affect revenue.
How free are we if the state can take control of our electronic devices and we have no option to opt out? What does freedom mean if the state can tell manufactures what features phones must have? Can I build my own phone that doesn't have this feature? Can I sell it to you? Will they put me in jail if I do? Will they put _you_ in jail for being in possession of a non-government phone? When things like this happen in countries like China everyone jumps on the bandwagon and says how great America because we are free but when it happens in America for some reason it gets justified.
Those questions should be asked of asked of all health claims including the benefits of vitamin C, fish oil, anti oxidants, and crystal therapy. It's amazing the amount of crap people believe where the evidence is either insufficient or the research flawed.
Why can't they be like the UK and Scotland where they all sit down and discuss it over a nice cup of tea? Then if they want their independence they can have it. No big fuss.
I first heard about regulatory capture in an economics class where it was referred to a the Stockholm Syndrome for regulators. It's a well documented phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... It also doesn't help when regulators are guaranteed well paid future jobs within the industries they are currently supposed to be regulating.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly takes the power to regulate commerce out of the hands of the Executive and gives it to Congress. And if it's not interstate commerce then it's up to the states.
But it's only commercial delivery that is banned. You can deliver beer to ice fishermen by drone, no problem. But as soon as you are compensated for the effort it becomes illegal. How is this technology supposed to grow if you can't fund it?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find these kind of incidents also happen with regular cab drivers. Newspaper articles are often not a good source of data for these kind of stats.
Isn't this simple? You have two people. A driver. A passenger. The driver wants to drive the passenger from A to B and the passenenger wants to pay the driver. What moral right does anyone have to prevent them from entering into their own contract? The state claims safety yet the state doesn't seem to care if I climb mountains which is statistically far riskier. We live in a bizzar kafkaesque disytopia when people are regulating just for the sake of having regulation jobs. Even if Uber is not safe isn't it up to the consumer to decide how much risk to take?
This is a free zero cost medium. The spectrum should be opnened up to everyone with power being the only limitation. We are told over and over the spectrum needs to be regulated because of interference yet for all intents and purposes there is nothing in physics that limits information density until you get to the quantum level. Wireless carriers have zero incentive to combat interference when they have a monopoly on the spectrum. They just charge more. It's also obvious to many engineers that mesh networks are more efficient. But mesh networks decentralize authority and therefore affect revenue so meshing is not likely to be popular with incumbent carriers. All those billions will ultimately be paid for be the consumer while the incumbents have zero incentive to innovate. We should take the spectrum away from business people and give it to engineers who can actually do something with it.
These free trade sites will keep popping up as fast as they are shutdown. The government's position that unrestricted trade is dangerous is untenable.
Interesting how we think we are free because we can say what we want. Yet we are not free. We cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. I mean you cannot freely buy any product directly from the manufacturer anywhere in the world. Why not? Is it a public safety issue? Is it protecting jobs? Or is it an easy revenue stream for those in power?
Why is it so important for people to believe in god?
Who cares if Uber _is_ a cab company? What moral authority does the state have to stop consenting adults from forming their own contracts and doing business with each other?
Who makes these rules and why?
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live. ...
Most laws are within the confines you set. So what's your point?
But the law that gives the state the authority to restrict carpooling doesn't appear to be within those confines. Consenting adults should have the right to interact and do business with each other as they want without having to get permission first. .
Governments today restrict trade just like the church used to restrict speech. We think we are free because we can say what we want but we are not free. We cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. Freedom to trade is as much a threat to the authority of the modern Hobbesian state as speech was to the church when Galileo was alive. That's why you need permission to operate a carpool. In the future, when the world is more enlightened, freedom to trade will be as much a basic right as speech is today. No higher authority should be able to make it illegal for consenting adults to interact with one another.
The law is meaningless when there is no one left to enforce it.
The judges in these kind of cases are appointed by the executive, the same branch of government they are supposed to keep in check. This is a problem because the executive has a tendency to appoint only judges with views similar to itself. So it's not surprising these judges often rule in favor of the executive.
The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can.
I respectfully disagree. The US naturally supports its own interests wherever it can. United States support of authoritarian regimes. No matter how bad Sharia law might be the Islamic State guys are tired of foreign interference. They've had enough of everything that's happened after Sykes-Picot and they want the right to self determination. It's no wonder they have so much internal support.
I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right. People should be free to trade with whoever they want, when they want, without the need to get permission from some higher authority. Why are we still living under the ecclesiastical guardianship of a hobbesian leviathanical kafkaesque dystopia? Whatever happened to the Enlightenment?
The president doesn't have the power to require local law enforcement to wear cameras. Read your constitution ye petition signers. Article II.
If the tragedy of the commons applies only to finite resources then the above network should be a lot more efficient than the current one. Remember now, Verizon, et al. It's just an experiment. You guys are engineers too, right?
Why hasn't the price of data centers come way down with new storage technology? For example, why not keep a few terabytes of offline storage in your desk drawer instead of paying $$$ for tapes? If tapes are more reliable then what level of duplication is needed for disks to be as reliable? This combined with the multiplier effects of no_AC_necessary solid-state ... why not big data center in small closet? If the data center is inefficient, why is it still around? Latin me that, my trinity scholard.
Is this requirement based on science or an irrational fear of computers?
You think you are free because you can say what you want but you are not free. You cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For some reason freedom to trade was never considered a basic human right. From a functionalist perspective trade is to the modern state what speech was to the church. Both affect revenue.
How free are we if the state can take control of our electronic devices and we have no option to opt out? What does freedom mean if the state can tell manufactures what features phones must have? Can I build my own phone that doesn't have this feature? Can I sell it to you? Will they put me in jail if I do? Will they put _you_ in jail for being in possession of a non-government phone? When things like this happen in countries like China everyone jumps on the bandwagon and says how great America because we are free but when it happens in America for some reason it gets justified.
Those questions should be asked of asked of all health claims including the benefits of vitamin C, fish oil, anti oxidants, and crystal therapy. It's amazing the amount of crap people believe where the evidence is either insufficient or the research flawed.
Why can't they be like the UK and Scotland where they all sit down and discuss it over a nice cup of tea? Then if they want their independence they can have it. No big fuss.
I first heard about regulatory capture in an economics class where it was referred to a the Stockholm Syndrome for regulators. It's a well documented phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... It also doesn't help when regulators are guaranteed well paid future jobs within the industries they are currently supposed to be regulating.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly takes the power to regulate commerce out of the hands of the Executive and gives it to Congress. And if it's not interstate commerce then it's up to the states.
But it's only commercial delivery that is banned. You can deliver beer to ice fishermen by drone, no problem. But as soon as you are compensated for the effort it becomes illegal. How is this technology supposed to grow if you can't fund it?