How is me driving with a stranger more likely to result in an accident than me driving with a friend?
Just one ride? It won't. However, someone who's doing this is likely going to be driving far more than your average driver. Which is where the more likely to result in an accident thing comes from.
Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer.
Exactly.
That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along.
So you're saying that the only Uber drivers I'll find are those with commercial licenses? Given how it operates here in the states, I find that notion completely laughable.
If a cop calls you, asks you to perform an illegal action, and then arrests/tickets you for performing said illegal action: entrapment.
No, that definition is completely incorrect. If they coerce you into performing an action that you otherwise would not have done, that is entrapment. It would be almost impossible for someone who is signed up as an Uber/Lyft driver to argue this, as they very clearly would have done the action without the police around.
Otherwise, I do have a question: why the demand for "commercial insurance" in the first place?
Because they are operating in a commercial manner. And considering that they are doing that, and driving much more than the average person, they are more likely to get into an accident.
Also, most auto insurance setups actually do cover the passengers in your vehicle should they get injured, so, well - what's the beef?
Most auto insurance setups will expressly NOT cover a crash or injury if it was determined that you were using your vehicle in a commercial manner, which is what this would be.
One caveat, though: if the rider signed a waiver online that lists the risks, and requires him to acknowledge and agree to them before ordering a ride, he very well wouldn't have much of a case unless the driver were drunk or high or etc.
The problem is that the insider who hold the licenses (usually gained with great effort) want to keep the outsiders out.
Presumably because they paid quite a bit for them. It's not at all fair that someone else comes in to try and take your customers who hasn't had to do that.
Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web.
So fucking what? An editorial ran in the New York Times is much more likely to reach people than something written on my self hosted blog or my small town newspaper. Does that mean the NYT should be obligated to carry my writing?
Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.
So how should one make a 3D web game that Apple can't censor?
Who says you should be able to? If you're that afraid of "being censored", then release on a different platform. You are NOT entitled to a platform supporting your stuff.
It's hard for most to understand the harm of having a corporation, a single entity decide what's acceptable.
But, they don't. I went onto the Google Play store just now, and the game was available. I didn't download it, because I had no interest, but if I wanted to, I had full access.
The developer has even put the APK up on their site for download.
Pretty hard to beat that kind of access.
You can reach a lot of people through Apple apps.
And I could reach a lot of people through writing something in the New York Times, or by selling something at WalMart. Doesn't mean either of those parties are obligated to carry my stuff.
Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?
There isn't harm being done if there was never an obligation to carry the thing in the first place. Their app is still available on other platforms, and there are still the PC and Mac platforms available if they want to reach a wider market.
No, and quite frankly, I don't care to. It's a purely retarded argument.
Although I could point to the Google Play store, which doesn't have those restrictions, and show how they've paid out far, far, far less than Apple has to developers.
That's completely beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a work. However, the people at Apple are NOT Congress, and are therefore not bound by the same restrictions. Just like you're not required to buy an iOS device.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, why would Uber have a lower license cost than the cabbies who know the town?
How is me driving with a stranger more likely to result in an accident than me driving with a friend?
Just one ride? It won't. However, someone who's doing this is likely going to be driving far more than your average driver. Which is where the more likely to result in an accident thing comes from.
Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer.
Exactly.
That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along.
No. That's not at all how these services work.
If the iPhone app doesn't match the legal description of a taximeter, then that would be a strike against Uber, as they're not using one.
So you're saying that the only Uber drivers I'll find are those with commercial licenses? Given how it operates here in the states, I find that notion completely laughable.
Ummm, no? They very much can do that, and it is not entrapment. Because the person was doing it anyway, they were not coerced by the cop.
Uh, no. That's not at all how it works. That's like a drug dealer saying he wouldn't have sold the drugs if he knew the person was a cop.
How in the bloody hell is that entrapment?
If a cop calls you, asks you to perform an illegal action, and then arrests/tickets you for performing said illegal action: entrapment.
No, that definition is completely incorrect. If they coerce you into performing an action that you otherwise would not have done, that is entrapment. It would be almost impossible for someone who is signed up as an Uber/Lyft driver to argue this, as they very clearly would have done the action without the police around.
Otherwise, I do have a question: why the demand for "commercial insurance" in the first place?
Because they are operating in a commercial manner. And considering that they are doing that, and driving much more than the average person, they are more likely to get into an accident.
Also, most auto insurance setups actually do cover the passengers in your vehicle should they get injured, so, well - what's the beef?
Most auto insurance setups will expressly NOT cover a crash or injury if it was determined that you were using your vehicle in a commercial manner, which is what this would be.
One caveat, though: if the rider signed a waiver online that lists the risks, and requires him to acknowledge and agree to them before ordering a ride, he very well wouldn't have much of a case unless the driver were drunk or high or etc.
I would posit that any such waiver be invalid.
The problem is that the insider who hold the licenses (usually gained with great effort) want to keep the outsiders out.
Presumably because they paid quite a bit for them. It's not at all fair that someone else comes in to try and take your customers who hasn't had to do that.
If Uber was lobbying for getting rid of the cabbie license, or was requiring cabbie licenses, then you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.
Because "meeting the business needs" usually means "having it done yesterday" and having it done cheaper.
That's definitely not true.
Just like it would make more sense to not use platforms who's policies you don't agree with than complain about it?
And yet, no one is forcing you to use Apple products.
And really, if Google did any of the stuff you're talking about, they'd have the FTC on their ass even harder than they did.
You're not required to use Apple. The game is fully available on Android.
It is, actually. You can download the APK from their site, as well as from the Google Play store.
They're not entitled to make money.
Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web.
So fucking what? An editorial ran in the New York Times is much more likely to reach people than something written on my self hosted blog or my small town newspaper. Does that mean the NYT should be obligated to carry my writing?
Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.
Not anyone's problem but their own.
That is NOT CENSORSHIP.
They are NOT OBLIGATED to cater to your whims.
So how should one make a 3D web game that Apple can't censor?
Who says you should be able to? If you're that afraid of "being censored", then release on a different platform. You are NOT entitled to a platform supporting your stuff.
It's hard for most to understand the harm of having a corporation, a single entity decide what's acceptable.
But, they don't. I went onto the Google Play store just now, and the game was available. I didn't download it, because I had no interest, but if I wanted to, I had full access.
The developer has even put the APK up on their site for download.
Pretty hard to beat that kind of access.
You can reach a lot of people through Apple apps.
And I could reach a lot of people through writing something in the New York Times, or by selling something at WalMart. Doesn't mean either of those parties are obligated to carry my stuff.
Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?
There isn't harm being done if there was never an obligation to carry the thing in the first place. Their app is still available on other platforms, and there are still the PC and Mac platforms available if they want to reach a wider market.
No, and quite frankly, I don't care to. It's a purely retarded argument.
Although I could point to the Google Play store, which doesn't have those restrictions, and show how they've paid out far, far, far less than Apple has to developers.
Many of us quite frankly do not give two shits about pure "Free Markets".
App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
95% of apps get through the approval process with little or no incident. The "dangers of rejection" are seriously over-hyped by anti-Apple fanboys.
Anywhere that will have them. The Internet, for one. They have also made an Android version.
That's completely beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a work. However, the people at Apple are NOT Congress, and are therefore not bound by the same restrictions. Just like you're not required to buy an iOS device.