And where are all the other Breiviks? Can't you find any other? At least one per week, please.
Moving the goal posts means you've lost the argument.
You said it yourself, this guy trippled Norways yearly homicide rate in 3 days. How many of the Muslim incidents you allude to occur in war zones or countries that have an open revolution? Most of them. It's like saying all Christian nations are unsafe by Colombia as an example. The difference between us is that I can recognise BS and you cant.
Norway is an extremely safe country and a rational one. The way Norway picked up and carried on After Breivik is a shining example to us all. No fear mongering or revenge wars.
But where are the extremist Islamic attacks in Norway... at least one per week please.
I'd argue that one religion specifically actually makes me unsafe
And this makes you a xenophobe.
Which was the point of my argument, you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in things that agree with you.
Now here's the kicker, I'm an Australian, I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do considering how biased and inaccurate your sources are.
This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.
At this point in history, arguing that perhaps religion doesn't make people utterly stupid really sounds almost like arguing that perhaps the Earth is hollow.
But that isn't your argument.
Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent (which is what the site you linked to is trying to say). Dont try to change the argument to all religions because you've been proven wrong (you want a list of attacks, the IRA did over 10,000 bombings on its own).
Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.
Oh, by the way, the Breivik argument is just hilarious.
Actually it's not.
This just demonstrates you didn't understand the argument.
Norway doesn't have low homicide rate because it's Christian
You're the one arguing about religion, more specifically that one religion makes you unsafe.
I never said Norway was unsafe, I said Breivik was religiously motivated (he wrote a manifesto about it, his notion that the Christian church was being usurped was a big part of it).
An unarmed populous is easier to terrorize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... When being armed is illegal (or restricted to the point of being nearly that), only the bad guys will be armed in such situations. Waiting for the police to come save you is often an ineffective endeavor.
Australia's gun laws are what has prevented this person from having an assault rifle. He's armed with a small single barrelled shotgun. Having more armed people will ensure that more incidents like this will occur and a lot more often.
And I am an Australian. Our gun laws have prevented things like this as criminals cant get easy access to guns.
It's not the World Trade Center, and it's not Bali. It's a single cafe and a maximum possible body count than your typical school shooting in the US (which can hardly hold the news media's attention for more than a week any more).
It doesn't even have the chance to get to that body count. The guy is armed with a shotgun, so thats two shots at best.
This news wouldn't have made it out of Australia (if even NSW) if it weren't for the Islamic bogeyman angle.
You can easily obtain a firearm in Australia. In fact I own multiple. The thing is you have to be licensed and have a valid reason for owning one, and self defence is not a valid reason. You need to be a member of a club, pass a police check and have some character references. Then you need to wait a year after getting your license. It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is far from impossible.
This,
A thousand times this.
There's so much misinformation about firearms in Australia its not funny.
It's not hard to get guns in Australia unless you've got a criminal record. I used to have guns (I moved and it was just simpler to sell them) and my character reference was the administrator at my school (she was also a JP) and that was at age 18.
Only fully automatics and semi-automatics are banned here. That is a good thing because this tool walked into a cafe with a shotgun, not an AK47. At worst it's a double barrel sawn off.
What I would say is that Australia is a very safe place to live and your chances of getting shot here is almost zero
You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than being shot in Australia.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "bottom line", but the list itself is backed by evidence; it's not an opinion piece, just a summary of facts
Nope, the site presents a conclusion and cherry picks soundbites to suit their agenda.
What the "the bottom line" means in this context is that they started with a conclusion and went out to prove it. That alone makes the site extremely untrustworthy (a proper study starts with a question and seeks to answer it, junk science starts with a conclusion and seeks to support it).
The article the GP linked to can be summed up in this sentence. People who are dead set in a belief will look for evidence to support it no matter how irrational and ridiculous it is.
BTW, the site you linked to contains no facts, it is an opinion piece with poorly presented soundbites to make it look factual but really presents a pre-baked conclusion.
I'd like to see a list like that for other religions, really
-Northern Ireland.
-Anders Breivik,
-The Lords Resistane Army (Uganda, child soldiers, sex slaves and all that stuff you like to whinge that Muslims do).
-The Army of God (USA, bombed abortion clinics and attacked doctors).
These are just the recent non-islamic religious* motivated violence (the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland alone is enough to prove you're just ignorant). You've then got all the terrorist groups in South America which is decidedly Christian.
*Not picking on Christians mind you, Like Muslims I know the majority are not terrorists but these are just the most prominent examples in recent times.
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
This.
Its a lone wolf.
And given that his demand is a live debate with the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott its a fair assumption to say that this is directly tied to the anti-islamic raids that took place earlier this year.
Costs are going DOWN, and have been for ages. If you want to run a blog without ads under your own hosting account, that will cost you less than nearly any other hobby you could think of
This, hosting a large site costs less than a bag of golf bats.
Hell, a small site costs me A$90 per year to host in Australia on a reputable ISP (so I could get it cheaper if I used Dodgy Brothers datacentres) including registering the domain.
The problem with advertising is that it has become so intrusive and annoying. So people are fighting back with ad blockers. We dont like pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-reacharounds ads that load before content, talking ads, flashing ads so we block them. Strangely enough the text based ads I get on gmail and google are fine (and often missed by adblock). The advertisers started this arms race, now they're upset that they're losing it.
Ranting aside, the best business model I've seen for a website isn't advertising in as much as tying it to a real business. Travel forums do this a bit, they are either owned or sponsored by a local business like a bar or hotel that keeps some subtle advertisement. So people who use that site tend to frequent the business that runs it. Of course it needs to be a decent business for this to work but it works fantastically if you do run a good business.
The purpose of war is to shatter a social system that is harming our species and make space for something better.
This is about the silliest thing I've read all year... And it has a lot of competition.
The purpose of war is to gain land, money or power. Ultimately it comes down to power as money and land are just methods to get it. Even the enforcement of an ideology is to get more power for those who control or benefit from that ideology being enforced. No religious war has ever been waged to benefit god, men have always been the primary and intended beneficiaries.
If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.
OK, now this is the silliest thing I've read all year. At least your consistent.
When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?
Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.
his simply isn't true. Australia operates under contract law, and unless a term is illegal or "unconscionable" to the public, they will not alter that.
And you just said I was right.
A contract has to be legal, companies cannot defer their duty of care in a contract (otherwise you'd see every mining and transport company doing this with their EBA's to reduce their liabilty insurance costs).
There are many ways lawyers can arrange this agreement to severely limit Uber's liability.
No, as long as Uber is facilitating the service they are liable. The same as any other taxi company except Uber do not get the same protections because they are operating outside the law.
For example, they could force both parties using the app to agree to terms limiting the right to sue to a certain jurisdiction friendly to them.
Shrinkwrap contracts are not enforceable in Australia. They cant simply force the app user to agree to a limitation to sue. Besides, it wont be the app user that hits them. It will be the insurers and this is where it gets interesting, what protects normal taxi companies against these lawsuits are two fold, 1. they have sufficient insurance, 2. The law protects them, limiting liability. Uber fails on both these counts.
The entirely of the contract needs to be explained to you before you can agree to it. You cant even get a bank account here without being read a full page document outlining the key responsibilities of both parties.
This is not a proper use of this analogy.
Actually it is.
Uber facilitates the organisation and the payment, this in effect makes it a taxi company. Attempting to claim they aren't a taxi company when they advertise themselves as such will be considered at best, "misleading conduct" if not outright fraud. The fact they use contractual drivers does not change this (cluebat, normal taxi companies use drivers con a ontract or casual basis, in fact few will be FT or PT employees).
. The contract defines the terms of the relationship, and unless they are breaching that, is valid.
Contracts do not trump Australian law, as you stated in your second sentence.
If Uber acts like a taxi company, it will be treated like one in the eyes of the law.
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it. I am pretty sure if I was a driver and got in an accident they would pretty much drop me like a hot potato. Unless your insurance policy includes driving as part of working there is no bloody way I would even think of taking this on.
The real problem for Uber when this happens is that they will most likely get sued and found liable. In Germany, because the contracts between Uber and the drivers don't really matter; Uber is a taxi company, no matter what it claims. In the USA, because you only need to be a tiny tiny bit responsible for the damages and you are on the hook for all of it.
And it would be the same for the rest of the EU as well as Australia.
I cant say how the insurance industry in Germany, Spain or England would deal with it but I'd be surprised if it was much different to Australia. Basically when an Uber driver causes a serious accident (and thats a when, not an if) Uber will be treated as if it were the taxi company regardless of what agreements between Uber and the driver are in place (under Australian law if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck). Basically Uber cant palm off it's responsibilities or liabilities in a shrink wrap contract.
So the Uber driver causes a 4 car pileup with serious injuries, 3 people in the hospital at least. The insurance company will pay out the claims for all cars and injuries with the possible exception of the Uber drivers car (as private insurance does not cover commercial use and that the driver is not licensed as a taxi driver). However all insurers will be legally permitted to go after Uber to cover all of their costs, car insurers, health insurers and property insurers, the government as well as they're a health insurer in Australia and local/state governments have to foot the road and infrastructure repair costs.
Basically, one serious accident is enough to send them broke (and yes, I know how much Uber has in the bank... Accidents are that expensive) if not enough to have the CEO and directors indicted on criminal negligence charges (yeah, we do that in Australia).
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
And this is the same for Bangkok, Thailand where they've been banned. Taxis are heavily regulated and dirt cheap. Because the government keeps the price of Bangkok taxi's down they get some protection.
They are afforded no such protection in Phuket, so the taxi mafia there makes their own. Drivers who aren't in the Mafia are tracked down and beaten. But seeing as Phuket is an unregulated "free" market for taxis and regulation is bad, this must be a good thing.
Evil regulation means it costs a whopping 400 baht to drive 30 KM from the BKK airport to the city centre, the good and unquestionable free market means that a taxi driver in Phuket wont even turn on the engine for less than 200 baht... Go free market.
I'll head you off at the pass, if you say "but that isn't the 'true' free market" and give you a pre-emptive WHOOOOSH. This is what a truly unrestricted market becomes because people aren't rational.
The legacy taxis are just utterly terrible services on so many levels.
As are Uber.
Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar show up on time where you need them,
LoL, last time I tried to use Uber we ended up getting an ordinary taxi because two cars didn't show. After the second car, I took charge and called a licensed and insured taxi company who's car appeared within 5 minutes.
Also they aren't any cheaper than normal taxis in my city, in fact given surge pricing they're often more expensive. At 2 am in the morning after a night out, there were no Uber cars about anywhere but taxi's were numerous and cheaper.
Uber are an absolute joke. They'll be dead in a year or two. Even fanboyism wont save them.
Fat, stupid, the only culture they know is bacterial, always getting caught up in stupid wars.
Well, we put a fat, stupid flag on the moon with an German rocket and German scientists.
The Saturn rocket program traces it's roots the the V2 rockets the Germans developed in WWII. It was developed by mostly German scientists lead by Werner Von Braun.
The Soviets were very proud of the fact that, having executed all of their competent commanders, they relied on brute-force meat-grinding in place of actual strategy. Make no mistake, it wasn't the Germans that killed all those Soviets; it was their generals and kommissars, sending them into needless suicide.
And that isn't even what caused most of the casualties.
The Soviet policies of scorched earth combined with the military receiving priority for absolutely everything created the perfect environment for disease and famine to claim more civilian casualties than their idiotic military policies.
The Soviet government killed more Soviet civilians than the Nazi government did.
Last I checked all my utilities other than water are private companies. My taxes won't pay my electric, gas or phone bill. If I don't pay any of them then they get shut off.
Also I pay my water bill to my local city and it's not even part of my taxes.
Cool,
When did you get the last bill for the Police, Fire services, residential streets you drive on, sanitation, storm drains and so on? Are these provided by private companies?
Awaken from your dreamy state Libertarian. Utilities are more than just power and gas.
...in the taxi market, which is why we have regulation today.
And we've already seen how psychopathically Uber is willing to behave, for the avoidance of doubt.
Yeah, the first hit's always cheap. Do Americans have history classes in school?
This.
If the Americans have forgotten their history, just go to South East Asia.
The highly regulated system in Bangkok and Singapore are cheap, plentiful and easy to use. The unregulated systems in places like Phuket are expensive and run by cartels.
Larger businesses can find the cost of handling cash is larger than the merchant fees
Sorry, but this is utter bollocks.
I've worked deploying EFT systems both large and small. I can tell you there is a large American petroleum distribution company who's merchant fees utterly dwarf their staff costs. I'm sure they're not the only ones. A large Australian supermarket chain has stopped buying card only automatic checkouts because they aren't being used enough.
Cash and debit are far cheaper than credit. The problem is banks have addicted people to credit using rewards programs and charged the merchant to accept cards (which well and truly pays for them and some).
They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.
First I'll say that this little gem in the T&C is illegal in Australia (and anywhere else with semi-sane consumer protection). Hell, even in the United States I've negotiated better prices with cash because of merchant fees.
But this rule does not discriminate against cash accepting businesses. Everyone who accepts credit cards has to pay, even if they have no cash facilities what so ever.
In fact, it helps businesses that do accept cash because they have a percentage of transactions that are not subject to merchant service fees so they make more profit by giving a slight discount meaning a business has no incentive to refuse cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Moving the goal posts means you've lost the argument.
You said it yourself, this guy trippled Norways yearly homicide rate in 3 days. How many of the Muslim incidents you allude to occur in war zones or countries that have an open revolution? Most of them. It's like saying all Christian nations are unsafe by Colombia as an example. The difference between us is that I can recognise BS and you cant.
Norway is an extremely safe country and a rational one. The way Norway picked up and carried on After Breivik is a shining example to us all. No fear mongering or revenge wars.
But where are the extremist Islamic attacks in Norway... at least one per week please.
And this makes you a xenophobe.
Which was the point of my argument, you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in things that agree with you.
Now here's the kicker, I'm an Australian, I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do considering how biased and inaccurate your sources are.
This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.
But that isn't your argument.
Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent (which is what the site you linked to is trying to say). Dont try to change the argument to all religions because you've been proven wrong (you want a list of attacks, the IRA did over 10,000 bombings on its own).
Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.
Oh, by the way, the Breivik argument is just hilarious.
Actually it's not.
This just demonstrates you didn't understand the argument.
Norway doesn't have low homicide rate because it's Christian
You're the one arguing about religion, more specifically that one religion makes you unsafe.
I never said Norway was unsafe, I said Breivik was religiously motivated (he wrote a manifesto about it, his notion that the Christian church was being usurped was a big part of it).
Sorry to hear this unfolding :(
An unarmed populous is easier to terrorize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... When being armed is illegal (or restricted to the point of being nearly that), only the bad guys will be armed in such situations. Waiting for the police to come save you is often an ineffective endeavor.
Australia's gun laws are what has prevented this person from having an assault rifle. He's armed with a small single barrelled shotgun. Having more armed people will ensure that more incidents like this will occur and a lot more often.
And I am an Australian. Our gun laws have prevented things like this as criminals cant get easy access to guns.
We are not terrorised here I can assure you.
It's not the World Trade Center, and it's not Bali. It's a single cafe and a maximum possible body count than your typical school shooting in the US (which can hardly hold the news media's attention for more than a week any more).
It doesn't even have the chance to get to that body count. The guy is armed with a shotgun, so thats two shots at best.
This news wouldn't have made it out of Australia (if even NSW) if it weren't for the Islamic bogeyman angle.
+1 sad indictment.
Abbott's handlers would never let him.
Tony Abbott's statement on this couldn't have been more generic if it were written in beige.
But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.
Of FFS. Please stop spreading your ignorance.
You can easily obtain a firearm in Australia. In fact I own multiple. The thing is you have to be licensed and have a valid reason for owning one, and self defence is not a valid reason. You need to be a member of a club, pass a police check and have some character references. Then you need to wait a year after getting your license. It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is far from impossible.
This,
A thousand times this.
There's so much misinformation about firearms in Australia its not funny.
It's not hard to get guns in Australia unless you've got a criminal record. I used to have guns (I moved and it was just simpler to sell them) and my character reference was the administrator at my school (she was also a JP) and that was at age 18.
Only fully automatics and semi-automatics are banned here. That is a good thing because this tool walked into a cafe with a shotgun, not an AK47. At worst it's a double barrel sawn off.
You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than being shot in Australia.
2GB is about the worst place you want to hear about this from. ABC news is a far better source.
Nope, the site presents a conclusion and cherry picks soundbites to suit their agenda.
What the "the bottom line" means in this context is that they started with a conclusion and went out to prove it. That alone makes the site extremely untrustworthy (a proper study starts with a question and seeks to answer it, junk science starts with a conclusion and seeks to support it).
The article the GP linked to can be summed up in this sentence. People who are dead set in a belief will look for evidence to support it no matter how irrational and ridiculous it is.
BTW, the site you linked to contains no facts, it is an opinion piece with poorly presented soundbites to make it look factual but really presents a pre-baked conclusion.
-Northern Ireland.
-Anders Breivik,
-The Lords Resistane Army (Uganda, child soldiers, sex slaves and all that stuff you like to whinge that Muslims do).
-The Army of God (USA, bombed abortion clinics and attacked doctors).
These are just the recent non-islamic religious* motivated violence (the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland alone is enough to prove you're just ignorant). You've then got all the terrorist groups in South America which is decidedly Christian.
*Not picking on Christians mind you, Like Muslims I know the majority are not terrorists but these are just the most prominent examples in recent times.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
This.
Its a lone wolf.
And given that his demand is a live debate with the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott its a fair assumption to say that this is directly tied to the anti-islamic raids that took place earlier this year.
Costs are going DOWN, and have been for ages. If you want to run a blog without ads under your own hosting account, that will cost you less than nearly any other hobby you could think of
This, hosting a large site costs less than a bag of golf bats.
Hell, a small site costs me A$90 per year to host in Australia on a reputable ISP (so I could get it cheaper if I used Dodgy Brothers datacentres) including registering the domain.
The problem with advertising is that it has become so intrusive and annoying. So people are fighting back with ad blockers. We dont like pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-reacharounds ads that load before content, talking ads, flashing ads so we block them. Strangely enough the text based ads I get on gmail and google are fine (and often missed by adblock). The advertisers started this arms race, now they're upset that they're losing it.
Ranting aside, the best business model I've seen for a website isn't advertising in as much as tying it to a real business. Travel forums do this a bit, they are either owned or sponsored by a local business like a bar or hotel that keeps some subtle advertisement. So people who use that site tend to frequent the business that runs it. Of course it needs to be a decent business for this to work but it works fantastically if you do run a good business.
This is about the silliest thing I've read all year... And it has a lot of competition.
The purpose of war is to gain land, money or power. Ultimately it comes down to power as money and land are just methods to get it. Even the enforcement of an ideology is to get more power for those who control or benefit from that ideology being enforced. No religious war has ever been waged to benefit god, men have always been the primary and intended beneficiaries.
OK, now this is the silliest thing I've read all year. At least your consistent.
When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?
Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.
Has anyone explained to them how guns operate?
or bombs and mortars?
The first significant user of firearms in Europe were the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) as hand held guns came in from Asia via the middle east.
Then again a little hypocrisy in religion is nothing new. So I highly doubt it will have any effect on Muslims what so ever.
And you just said I was right.
A contract has to be legal, companies cannot defer their duty of care in a contract (otherwise you'd see every mining and transport company doing this with their EBA's to reduce their liabilty insurance costs).
No, as long as Uber is facilitating the service they are liable. The same as any other taxi company except Uber do not get the same protections because they are operating outside the law.
Shrinkwrap contracts are not enforceable in Australia. They cant simply force the app user to agree to a limitation to sue. Besides, it wont be the app user that hits them. It will be the insurers and this is where it gets interesting, what protects normal taxi companies against these lawsuits are two fold, 1. they have sufficient insurance, 2. The law protects them, limiting liability. Uber fails on both these counts. The entirely of the contract needs to be explained to you before you can agree to it. You cant even get a bank account here without being read a full page document outlining the key responsibilities of both parties.
Actually it is. Uber facilitates the organisation and the payment, this in effect makes it a taxi company. Attempting to claim they aren't a taxi company when they advertise themselves as such will be considered at best, "misleading conduct" if not outright fraud. The fact they use contractual drivers does not change this (cluebat, normal taxi companies use drivers con a ontract or casual basis, in fact few will be FT or PT employees).
Contracts do not trump Australian law, as you stated in your second sentence.
If Uber acts like a taxi company, it will be treated like one in the eyes of the law.
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it. I am pretty sure if I was a driver and got in an accident they would pretty much drop me like a hot potato. Unless your insurance policy includes driving as part of working there is no bloody way I would even think of taking this on.
The real problem for Uber when this happens is that they will most likely get sued and found liable. In Germany, because the contracts between Uber and the drivers don't really matter; Uber is a taxi company, no matter what it claims. In the USA, because you only need to be a tiny tiny bit responsible for the damages and you are on the hook for all of it.
And it would be the same for the rest of the EU as well as Australia.
I cant say how the insurance industry in Germany, Spain or England would deal with it but I'd be surprised if it was much different to Australia. Basically when an Uber driver causes a serious accident (and thats a when, not an if) Uber will be treated as if it were the taxi company regardless of what agreements between Uber and the driver are in place (under Australian law if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck). Basically Uber cant palm off it's responsibilities or liabilities in a shrink wrap contract.
So the Uber driver causes a 4 car pileup with serious injuries, 3 people in the hospital at least. The insurance company will pay out the claims for all cars and injuries with the possible exception of the Uber drivers car (as private insurance does not cover commercial use and that the driver is not licensed as a taxi driver). However all insurers will be legally permitted to go after Uber to cover all of their costs, car insurers, health insurers and property insurers, the government as well as they're a health insurer in Australia and local/state governments have to foot the road and infrastructure repair costs.
Basically, one serious accident is enough to send them broke (and yes, I know how much Uber has in the bank... Accidents are that expensive) if not enough to have the CEO and directors indicted on criminal negligence charges (yeah, we do that in Australia).
And this is the same for Bangkok, Thailand where they've been banned. Taxis are heavily regulated and dirt cheap. Because the government keeps the price of Bangkok taxi's down they get some protection. They are afforded no such protection in Phuket, so the taxi mafia there makes their own. Drivers who aren't in the Mafia are tracked down and beaten. But seeing as Phuket is an unregulated "free" market for taxis and regulation is bad, this must be a good thing. Evil regulation means it costs a whopping 400 baht to drive 30 KM from the BKK airport to the city centre, the good and unquestionable free market means that a taxi driver in Phuket wont even turn on the engine for less than 200 baht... Go free market. I'll head you off at the pass, if you say "but that isn't the 'true' free market" and give you a pre-emptive WHOOOOSH. This is what a truly unrestricted market becomes because people aren't rational.
As are Uber.
LoL, last time I tried to use Uber we ended up getting an ordinary taxi because two cars didn't show. After the second car, I took charge and called a licensed and insured taxi company who's car appeared within 5 minutes.
Also they aren't any cheaper than normal taxis in my city, in fact given surge pricing they're often more expensive. At 2 am in the morning after a night out, there were no Uber cars about anywhere but taxi's were numerous and cheaper.
Uber are an absolute joke. They'll be dead in a year or two. Even fanboyism wont save them.
Fat, stupid, the only culture they know is bacterial, always getting caught up in stupid wars.
Well, we put a fat, stupid flag on the moon with an German rocket and German scientists.
The Saturn rocket program traces it's roots the the V2 rockets the Germans developed in WWII. It was developed by mostly German scientists lead by Werner Von Braun.
So... You were saying.
And that isn't even what caused most of the casualties.
The Soviet policies of scorched earth combined with the military receiving priority for absolutely everything created the perfect environment for disease and famine to claim more civilian casualties than their idiotic military policies.
The Soviet government killed more Soviet civilians than the Nazi government did.
So, hitch-hiking but with cooler technology?
And a price tag... Which really makes it like a taxi with a driver who has a criminal record.
Last I checked all my utilities other than water are private companies. My taxes won't pay my electric, gas or phone bill. If I don't pay any of them then they get shut off.
Also I pay my water bill to my local city and it's not even part of my taxes.
Cool,
When did you get the last bill for the Police, Fire services, residential streets you drive on, sanitation, storm drains and so on? Are these provided by private companies?
Awaken from your dreamy state Libertarian. Utilities are more than just power and gas.
...in the taxi market, which is why we have regulation today.
And we've already seen how psychopathically Uber is willing to behave, for the avoidance of doubt.
Yeah, the first hit's always cheap. Do Americans have history classes in school?
This.
If the Americans have forgotten their history, just go to South East Asia.
The highly regulated system in Bangkok and Singapore are cheap, plentiful and easy to use. The unregulated systems in places like Phuket are expensive and run by cartels.
Sorry, but this is utter bollocks.
I've worked deploying EFT systems both large and small. I can tell you there is a large American petroleum distribution company who's merchant fees utterly dwarf their staff costs. I'm sure they're not the only ones. A large Australian supermarket chain has stopped buying card only automatic checkouts because they aren't being used enough.
Cash and debit are far cheaper than credit. The problem is banks have addicted people to credit using rewards programs and charged the merchant to accept cards (which well and truly pays for them and some).
They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.
First I'll say that this little gem in the T&C is illegal in Australia (and anywhere else with semi-sane consumer protection). Hell, even in the United States I've negotiated better prices with cash because of merchant fees.
But this rule does not discriminate against cash accepting businesses. Everyone who accepts credit cards has to pay, even if they have no cash facilities what so ever.
In fact, it helps businesses that do accept cash because they have a percentage of transactions that are not subject to merchant service fees so they make more profit by giving a slight discount meaning a business has no incentive to refuse cash.
since that's the ultimate anon payment system.
of course, we know what's going on. they hate having to compete against another company.
poor babies!
They absolutely hate cash... but seeing as the same forces who issue cash also grant them license to operate, they cant do jack shit about it.
But Bitcoin... there's people they can sue.
Seriously, if it were legal for MasterCard to punish businesses who accept cash, they would.