Becoming a black cab driver in London isn't as easy as buying a car, and that's for several reasons: - London's fucking big and fucking complicated. Having a satnav isn't necessarily enough to know where to take people, or especially how to get there efficiently - Black cabs are a part of London's reputation, attraction and transport infrastructure. There's an implicit level of quality and reliability that the licensing is intended to create - There are too many vehicles in London already, and black cabs get priority on many streets. For this reason black cab numbers are controlled - Taxi drivers gain personal access to individuals that may be in a vulnerable state. Solo ladies, young people, drunk people
Does that make Uber wrong? Not necessarily. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, it may offer a broader range of potential vehicles.
It also adds traffic to roads not designed to cater for it - the transport system in London is geared around a certain level of private traffic and a certain level of black cab activity, and Uber shifts that relationship.
So no, customers are not property. This situation is also not as straightforward as you're trying to suggest.
Yes, apparently I have. I read an article yesterday about it and this one today and that's all I've really heard about it.
It's a stupid name, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it. It's sure as shit not ubiquitous - just two cities in the whole country? Fuck that.
Sure, it's disrupting traditional business models, falling foul (or not) of various vehicle licensing regulations, accessed via a mobile phone application. It's still a niche product used by a few people, so don't go acting all fucking surprised that people haven't heard of it. Shit, it's not even available in the second most populous city in the UK or the largest city in Europe. Hardly fucking everywhere is it.
It doesn't matter how niche it is. It's a viable outcome from other attempted actions (e.g. controlled reduction in speed has an inherent failure condition of "speed didn't reduce") so the programmer immediately has to define behaviour in response to that condition.
How frequently that behaviour gets executed is irrelevant to the need to include it in the software.
I disagree. It's possible to find productive work for prisoners without creating a revenue generating business.
Even where revenue is generated, it should be that: revenue. Not profit.
Where prisoners' work is generating revenues, I want them recompensed for it. Otherwise it's slave labour, and again incentivises negative behaviours from those that gain from that labour.
I guess I'm just very aware that there are people out there willing to benefit from the misery of others. Some of them are criminals and go to prison for that. Others want to prey on them. Neither is acceptable.
A publicly owned and run prison service would be continually seeking to reduce cost, which would mean pressure to reduce crime, reduce recidivism and find more effective means of addressing criminal behaviour than locking somebody up for decades.
A privately owned prison wants more people in prison so lobbies for more laws, stronger punishments and doesn't have any incentive to prevent recidivism.
So you're paying for two very different things. One is justice, the other is the intentional destruction of society to boost corporate profits.
But still the public protests that just because they are in a blind rage and attacking people that they should not be stunned.
If police use of stun guns was always proportionate and appropriate there would be few complaints. There are too many youtube videos of police using their stun guns against people that aren't acting violently.
Declining to perform an act requested from a police officer rarely justifies use of force.
No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on. You aren't worth my time. You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.
Creating a law mandating that it must be purchased may be a threat, but that's a separate activity entirely.
As far as I can tell, the iP1 threatens nobody, except possibly when it's used. That it triggers a clause in a law that people don't want to change isn't an issue with the iP1, it's an issue with either the law or the people that don't want to change it.
It appears that my reading comprehension beats your ability to read in context.
I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.
Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise). In the context of my post and the post to which I was replying your reply was directly relevant to the threats to the woman.
So yes, spell it out again, and use smaller words. Maybe ones you can understand too. Because you still haven't told me just what the fuck sort of threat the iP1 is, or why that would justify retaliatory threats against someone involved with it.
Sorry, I don't understand. What the fuck has that got to do with this woman? She passed the law three years ago? She got New Jersey residents to elect the politicians that voted for it? She's forcing people to live in New Jersey?
Come back when you can think of an actual justification for a claim that developing this technology is threatening someone, because I think you're talking fucking nonsense.
Another lmgtfy twat. Link to the fucking reference so that I can see from the link whether it's some partisan bullshit or a reliable source.
The person asking the question may already have used google and given up on trying to find reliable non-partisan evidence, and you just failed miserably to fucking help. Next time just do the world a favour and stay fucking silent.
How often have you had to shoot someone, outside of a work related requirement?
I'm curious because people I know seem to get through their lives without needing to shoot anybody, so the miniscule chance of a gun failing is pretty fucking irrelevant because there's a miniscule chance they'll ever fucking need it.
I mean, if you live in the Central African Republic then I can kind of understand that there's a need for serious and visible self-defence, and indeed to move around in numbers.
Or are you just a total twat that gets high on the thought of using his penis substitute to hurt someone?
Not at all. Nobody is forcing them to buy one. Nobody is forcing them to give back the guns they already own. Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.
I see no threat at all, unless you're worried that you wont be able to disarm the owner of an iP1 and use their weapon against them. That's not really the sort of threat I tend to worry about.
and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun?
Why is evidence required? The challenge is whether they should be trusted with a gun; their current status is immaterial until you choose to act on that level of trust.
Yeah, you've never been scared of death by burning to the extent that you couldn't bring yourself to risk the pain and death that would cause even to save your kids, or so ashamed of that afterwards that you'd like rather than have to admit it?
I can understand that. I still wouldn't fucking kill you for it.
Yeah, I see that as further evidence that the death penalty has fuck all to do with justice and everything to do with retribution and winning votes by appealing to stupid people that can't think properly.
There are known painless ways to kill people, and the states always reject all of them.
The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way
It could, but it isn't. Try a couple of variants - The message could be that if you are found guilty of committing a horrible murder and rape then you deserve to be tortured to death, whether you actually committed the crime or not - The message could be that Oklahoma believes in retribution not justice - The message could be that officials in Oklahoma think the bribes they receive from the drug company are more important than the constitution or the rights of fellow men - The message could be as simple as Stay the fuck out of Oklahoma
Are you five years old or just mentally that fucking stupid?
Lets add another step to your basic flowchart:
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? Yes -- then you've conceded the argument Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? No -- then you need to go away, do some research and learn about why you're both wrong, and a total fuckwit. ]
That may be the case, but I'd rather kill them than the innocent 4%.
If someone is so desperate that someone innocent must die as a result of harm to a loved one then it seems only fair that they offer to be that person.
Slashdot Mirror
Becoming a black cab driver in London isn't as easy as buying a car, and that's for several reasons:
- London's fucking big and fucking complicated. Having a satnav isn't necessarily enough to know where to take people, or especially how to get there efficiently
- Black cabs are a part of London's reputation, attraction and transport infrastructure. There's an implicit level of quality and reliability that the licensing is intended to create
- There are too many vehicles in London already, and black cabs get priority on many streets. For this reason black cab numbers are controlled
- Taxi drivers gain personal access to individuals that may be in a vulnerable state. Solo ladies, young people, drunk people
Does that make Uber wrong? Not necessarily. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, it may offer a broader range of potential vehicles.
It also adds traffic to roads not designed to cater for it - the transport system in London is geared around a certain level of private traffic and a certain level of black cab activity, and Uber shifts that relationship.
So no, customers are not property. This situation is also not as straightforward as you're trying to suggest.
Yes, apparently I have. I read an article yesterday about it and this one today and that's all I've really heard about it.
It's a stupid name, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it. It's sure as shit not ubiquitous - just two cities in the whole country? Fuck that.
Sure, it's disrupting traditional business models, falling foul (or not) of various vehicle licensing regulations, accessed via a mobile phone application. It's still a niche product used by a few people, so don't go acting all fucking surprised that people haven't heard of it. Shit, it's not even available in the second most populous city in the UK or the largest city in Europe. Hardly fucking everywhere is it.
It doesn't matter how niche it is. It's a viable outcome from other attempted actions (e.g. controlled reduction in speed has an inherent failure condition of "speed didn't reduce") so the programmer immediately has to define behaviour in response to that condition.
How frequently that behaviour gets executed is irrelevant to the need to include it in the software.
I disagree. It's possible to find productive work for prisoners without creating a revenue generating business.
Even where revenue is generated, it should be that: revenue. Not profit.
Where prisoners' work is generating revenues, I want them recompensed for it. Otherwise it's slave labour, and again incentivises negative behaviours from those that gain from that labour.
I guess I'm just very aware that there are people out there willing to benefit from the misery of others. Some of them are criminals and go to prison for that. Others want to prey on them. Neither is acceptable.
My issue isn't with reducing costs, or with finding prisoners productive activities. My issue is treating a prison as a revenue generating business.
That rewards the wrong behaviours by the people running the prison.
Meanwhile another 300 people are taken in by the same scam, and some criminal gang are giggling at the amount they're raking in.
Organised crime was never about single big payoffs, and just what the fuck makes the value of a crime relevant anyway?
The money would have been traceable through most if not all of its life. Tracking $13k leads you to the other $8m that's been stolen too.
A publicly owned and run prison service would be continually seeking to reduce cost, which would mean pressure to reduce crime, reduce recidivism and find more effective means of addressing criminal behaviour than locking somebody up for decades.
A privately owned prison wants more people in prison so lobbies for more laws, stronger punishments and doesn't have any incentive to prevent recidivism.
So you're paying for two very different things. One is justice, the other is the intentional destruction of society to boost corporate profits.
But still the public protests that just because they are in a blind rage and attacking people that they should not be stunned.
If police use of stun guns was always proportionate and appropriate there would be few complaints. There are too many youtube videos of police using their stun guns against people that aren't acting violently.
Declining to perform an act requested from a police officer rarely justifies use of force.
So I can tell the police that my phone is in your house, and that gives them the right to break in at 6am and point guns at you?
I mean, it's my phone and I did give them permission.
I'd rather they had to get a search warrant.
I thought it was a reasonable question, and you actually gave an excellent answer.
Then you got snarky. It's ok, we'll let you off.
No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on. You aren't worth my time. You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.
Creating this gun is in itself not a threat.
Creating a law mandating that it must be purchased may be a threat, but that's a separate activity entirely.
As far as I can tell, the iP1 threatens nobody, except possibly when it's used. That it triggers a clause in a law that people don't want to change isn't an issue with the iP1, it's an issue with either the law or the people that don't want to change it.
Focus on the issue, not the fucking symptoms.
It appears that my reading comprehension beats your ability to read in context.
I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.
Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise). In the context of my post and the post to which I was replying your reply was directly relevant to the threats to the woman.
So yes, spell it out again, and use smaller words. Maybe ones you can understand too. Because you still haven't told me just what the fuck sort of threat the iP1 is, or why that would justify retaliatory threats against someone involved with it.
Sorry, I don't understand. What the fuck has that got to do with this woman? She passed the law three years ago? She got New Jersey residents to elect the politicians that voted for it? She's forcing people to live in New Jersey?
Come back when you can think of an actual justification for a claim that developing this technology is threatening someone, because I think you're talking fucking nonsense.
Another lmgtfy twat. Link to the fucking reference so that I can see from the link whether it's some partisan bullshit or a reliable source.
The person asking the question may already have used google and given up on trying to find reliable non-partisan evidence, and you just failed miserably to fucking help. Next time just do the world a favour and stay fucking silent.
How often have you had to shoot someone, outside of a work related requirement?
I'm curious because people I know seem to get through their lives without needing to shoot anybody, so the miniscule chance of a gun failing is pretty fucking irrelevant because there's a miniscule chance they'll ever fucking need it.
I mean, if you live in the Central African Republic then I can kind of understand that there's a need for serious and visible self-defence, and indeed to move around in numbers.
Or are you just a total twat that gets high on the thought of using his penis substitute to hurt someone?
Not at all. Nobody is forcing them to buy one. Nobody is forcing them to give back the guns they already own. Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.
I see no threat at all, unless you're worried that you wont be able to disarm the owner of an iP1 and use their weapon against them. That's not really the sort of threat I tend to worry about.
and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun?
Why is evidence required? The challenge is whether they should be trusted with a gun; their current status is immaterial until you choose to act on that level of trust.
Yeah, you've never been scared of death by burning to the extent that you couldn't bring yourself to risk the pain and death that would cause even to save your kids, or so ashamed of that afterwards that you'd like rather than have to admit it?
I can understand that. I still wouldn't fucking kill you for it.
Nah, just send in some pigs.
In the UK if those men die during your efforts to prevent that rape, it's self defence and you're acting legally.
If they stop raping the girl, put their hands up and stand there until the police arrive, if you shoot them it's murder.
Is it really so difficult to differentiate between actions during an event and actions long after the event has finished?
Yeah, I see that as further evidence that the death penalty has fuck all to do with justice and everything to do with retribution and winning votes by appealing to stupid people that can't think properly.
There are known painless ways to kill people, and the states always reject all of them.
The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way
It could, but it isn't. Try a couple of variants
- The message could be that if you are found guilty of committing a horrible murder and rape then you deserve to be tortured to death, whether you actually committed the crime or not
- The message could be that Oklahoma believes in retribution not justice
- The message could be that officials in Oklahoma think the bribes they receive from the drug company are more important than the constitution or the rights of fellow men
- The message could be as simple as Stay the fuck out of Oklahoma
I'd rather see justice.
Are you five years old or just mentally that fucking stupid?
Lets add another step to your basic flowchart:
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? Yes -- then you've conceded the argument
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? No -- then you need to go away, do some research and learn about why you're both wrong, and a total fuckwit.
]
That may be the case, but I'd rather kill them than the innocent 4%.
If someone is so desperate that someone innocent must die as a result of harm to a loved one then it seems only fair that they offer to be that person.