The instant review stations are in view during some of the most tense situations of a game, with a lot of attention.
I don't know what channels you're watching the game on, but where I watch, the review station gets a couple of seconds of camera time at best. It's actually rather rare to see the booth at all.
Most of the on-air view is the replays themselves, with the announcers giving their interpretation.
I wonder how many of those who are up in arms about letting services like Uber and Lyft market their services would allow commercial hardware and software companies to make changes to GPL licensed software without attribution or sharing their modified source code?
Or should Apple support my home built PC if I put OS X on it? If I paid for the OS, the vendor should support that, right? Why should I pay extra for their hardware...it's no different, right?
To me, it's simple - if you want to market your services, follow the established rules.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since there is no "Right to Travel" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.
Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.
Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.
That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.
I'm just giving my opinion, and I've been in plenty of taxis in Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and elsewhere.
If you don't agree with my opinion, I have no problem with that.
Since the Uber premium services rely on existing limo services, why wouldn't I just go directly to those service providers? Although if I were in a position where I couldn't find one, Uber could potentially be useful in that situation.
Also, it's nice that Uber provides additional insurance, but the point is that in most locations, Uber, Lyft and the rest are still in a legal grey area in which I'd personally rather not find myself.
Again, if you want to avail yourself of the service, feel free.
We may not agree, but I see no reason for the angry invective.
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
I don't see why paper and pen aren't used. Even this guy's voting solution boils down to a paper ballot.
As for auto dashboards, I prefer them with discrete tactile switches and knobs. That way, my attention is focused on the road, where it should be.
I admire the fact that some folks are looking at making improvements, but there are some instances where involving technology serves only to complicate matters.
I may be older, but you can stay on my lawn if you wish. Just please don't make a mess.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since there is no "Right to Privacy" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since, to my knowledge, no State has prohibited privacy, nor has there been a Constitutional Amendment denying a citizen's right to privacy, the right to privacy most certainly exists.
Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.
If the driver was only in the area where the pedestrian was hit because the passenger was paying the driver, then it could be argued that the passenger shares liability with the driver.
If the driver was an Uber driver, then both Uber and the passenger could be liable.
The driver could also face criminal charges, depending on jurisdiction.
But the original point was that the portion of the Uber fare paid to the driver may not be sufficient to cover fuel and maintenance on the car, much less the required commercial insurance and/or licensing.
Thus, drivers are probably cutting corners by neglecting maintenance, not buying insurance, etc. A large portion of the commercial licensing requirements involves proving that the taxi owner is performing maintenance, has the required insurance, and that the drivers have the correct license. Apparently, Uber doesn't do any of that. Therefore, I have to agree with the Victoria government and the legal taxi and limo drivers. I wouldn't use the Uber service.
Slashdot Mirror
The instant review stations are in view during some of the most tense situations of a game, with a lot of attention.
I don't know what channels you're watching the game on, but where I watch, the review station gets a couple of seconds of camera time at best. It's actually rather rare to see the booth at all.
Most of the on-air view is the replays themselves, with the announcers giving their interpretation.
Perhaps an app that puts the current time on the face of the watch?
Because that ought to be enough for anybody! :D
If you're that concerned, you are cordially invited to get your buddies and some guns and head over there yourself.
I'm sure you'll be able to distinguish between the ISIS fighters and our allies.
Show everyone how a "Real 'Murrican" takes care of business.
Next question.
I wonder how many of those who are up in arms about letting services like Uber and Lyft market their services would allow commercial hardware and software companies to make changes to GPL licensed software without attribution or sharing their modified source code?
Or should Apple support my home built PC if I put OS X on it? If I paid for the OS, the vendor should support that, right? Why should I pay extra for their hardware...it's no different, right?
To me, it's simple - if you want to market your services, follow the established rules.
Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since there is no "Right to Travel" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.
Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.
Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.
That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.
I'm just giving my opinion, and I've been in plenty of taxis in Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and elsewhere.
If you don't agree with my opinion, I have no problem with that.
Since the Uber premium services rely on existing limo services, why wouldn't I just go directly to those service providers? Although if I were in a position where I couldn't find one, Uber could potentially be useful in that situation.
Also, it's nice that Uber provides additional insurance, but the point is that in most locations, Uber, Lyft and the rest are still in a legal grey area in which I'd personally rather not find myself.
Again, if you want to avail yourself of the service, feel free.
We may not agree, but I see no reason for the angry invective.
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
I think I see where the problem lies....
But we have to pass the bill so we know what's in it!
I don't see why paper and pen aren't used. Even this guy's voting solution boils down to a paper ballot.
As for auto dashboards, I prefer them with discrete tactile switches and knobs. That way, my attention is focused on the road, where it should be.
I admire the fact that some folks are looking at making improvements, but there are some instances where involving technology serves only to complicate matters.
I may be older, but you can stay on my lawn if you wish. Just please don't make a mess.
Actually, there are two reasons the replacement would have a fee:
1. To recoup the cost of the infrastructure.
2. To increase the profits for the provider.
These are banks, after all.
Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Since there is no "Right to Privacy" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.
Since, to my knowledge, no State has prohibited privacy, nor has there been a Constitutional Amendment denying a citizen's right to privacy, the right to privacy most certainly exists.
Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.
^^^ THIS ^^^
Since I don't have any mod points, please accept a virtual +10 from me.
The funny thing is that people are not only complicit in having their rights taken away, they're PAYING to do so.
If I had fewer scruples, I'm sure I could find a way to make money off this as well.
I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you over the WOOOSSSSHHHHH.
That assumes that "anyone they can find at software company" is anywhere near the jail.
So I can support either Kang or Kodos?
Here, take my money! </sarcasm>
I'm a fan of The Onion, too!
You could also text HELP to **WOOSH!
I certainly didn't figure this to work at all. I'm actually surprised that the "Do Not Call" list works as well as it does.
As for me, ABP, NoScript, BetterPrivacy and Ghostery seem to do the job well enough
The company has the name and address that the driver gave.
I could easily give 1060 W. Addison, Chicago, Illinois as my address (assuming I lived in the Chicago area).
Is Uber going to stop me?
If the driver was only in the area where the pedestrian was hit because the passenger was paying the driver, then it could be argued that the passenger shares liability with the driver.
If the driver was an Uber driver, then both Uber and the passenger could be liable.
The driver could also face criminal charges, depending on jurisdiction.
But the original point was that the portion of the Uber fare paid to the driver may not be sufficient to cover fuel and maintenance on the car, much less the required commercial insurance and/or licensing.
Thus, drivers are probably cutting corners by neglecting maintenance, not buying insurance, etc. A large portion of the commercial licensing requirements involves proving that the taxi owner is performing maintenance, has the required insurance, and that the drivers have the correct license. Apparently, Uber doesn't do any of that. Therefore, I have to agree with the Victoria government and the legal taxi and limo drivers. I wouldn't use the Uber service.