That is what Copyleft is. That is what GPL is supposed to be: using the copyright laws that were designed to protect proprietary interests in away that instead protects Software Freedom, that enforces Software Freedom.
Just because you refuse to understand the terms and arguments doesn't mean you've uncovered some hidden truth or something. You don't like Software Freedom. You find enforced Freedom too restrictive. You want to choose to be free, or not to be free. That is fine.
People probably mod you down because you pretend that people with a different view must just be stupid, or something. These are different choices based on different values, there is no utility in complaining about other people's license choices.
You know best what license to use for software you write, I know best what license to use for software I write, and RMS knows best what license to use for software that the FSF writes. This is all as it should be.
If you can't link GPL code at work, that is because of choices your boss made, not because of choices that RMS made or some implied deficiency in the GPL. Remember, people who choose the GPL want to be protected from your boss. People who don't share the values of the GPL are excluded for real reasons. You don't have to agree with those reasons or share their values to recognize that they have reasons that are based on their values, and they have every right to license their software in the way that they do. And you should be aware most of them are getting paid to write their code, most GPL code is written by paid programmers. Paid by companies. For-profit companies. With bosses who choose GPL. For business reasons. That doesn't make them less Free.
Now that persuasion has failed, I suppose he could fork it.
Or, choose a new maintainer. It might be a misread to assume the maintainer meant that RMS is irrelevant. When I read the thread, it seems to me to be more of a throwing-down-the-gauntlet, a my-way-or-fire-me type of statement.
It is worth reading the response from RMS, too: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/h... He talks about how the whole GNU Project has to do what is best for the GNU Project, not each package doing what is best for that package. He invokes the responsibility of each package maintainer to do so, and he closes with: "If GNU packages do not support each other, it will be easier for many of them to fail."
His detractors will call him irrelevant whatever he does, but history has examples like XEmacs to show what happens when there is disagreement with the FSF over the GNU packages. Even when the users like the rejected features, the GNU versions have remained more popular than the forks, and ways of moving forwards with features that are in demand have always been found.
And as an emacs user, this is not a threat to the GNU package at all. Almost nobody would use a fork over this, because most emacs users already have to manage a.emacs config that includes non-standard bits. It would just be another third party package to include there.
RMS isn't against commercial (for profit) software at all. He's against software that is not completely transparent to the user about what it's doing (and that you can't fix yourself if it breaks).
The software that he is objecting to supporting is completely transparent.
So why is he complaining here? What we can take from this is that your comments are worthless shit.
Your complaint is shit, because the point is both well known, and obvious to anybody who bothered to understand the background.
The point of the Free Software movement embodied in the Free Software Foundation is to create and support software that actively protects the users freedom by ensuring not only that the original software was transparent and user-modifiable, but also that it would protect you from being embraced, extended, and extinguished. Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position.
The counter argument isn't just, "hurr, whu? huh? you're shit." The counter argument is actually that if users have enough freedom available, that they can simply switch to something else and that "embrace, extend, extinguish" has been countered mostly by user demand for portable data formats, and SCOTUS decisions protecting the right to inter-operate.
The counter-counter argument is that users who really want Software Freedom can choose GPL software and not have to remain vigilant about each little example, each case where somebody is trying to include some proprietary bit and then get you to "need" it. They can instead simply remain vigilant about one thing; using Free Software. And then they're protected, and they can make business decisions with a higher level of predictability.
Most people can read these arguments and easily choose which one they prefer. The subjective choice, as with most subjective choices, are easy. But not everybody arrives at the same choices! And it is clearly in error to claim that one side didn't have a good point, or is "shit." They're just different points, based on different values and concerns.
I just wish there was a version of the debate where becoming a package maintainer and thrusting a new paradigm on the users was recognized as a removal of freedom, a form of "embrace, extend, extinguish."
I heard that if you color the edges of the chip with a blue sharpie, then your RPi mp3 player will have cleaner sound./s
I was recently working with some LED lighting modules with the bottom of the PCB exposed (and holding the LEDs) and the constant current controller had a big blob of epoxy on it. The other model where the LEDs were mounted on a different board, with the controller inside a metal housing, didn't have that.
Because the "systems" have evolved to be tolerant to the common frequencies of interference.
The signal strength has mostly gone up, not down, so without the improvement of the equipment receiving the interference, the problem would be worse now.
Just take a cheap powered computer speaker, remove the speaker wires, replace with the speaker wires from a 90s computer speaker, and place a cell phone next to it. You'll pick up lots of interference just off the unshielded wires.
Home stereo equipment picks up less interference in most cases because the long wires contain the fully amplified signal, which swamps most of the interference. In a powered computer speaker, the unshielded wires are at line level, and the amplification happens inside the speaker box, so the interference gets amplified along with the audio signal.
All it takes is either a shielded cable, or smaller wires, and the interference goes way down.
My cell phone still does that if I put powered speakers near it. Pretty much only would be close enough if they are computer speakers on a desk, most other audio setups with powered speakers aren't close enough to the places in the room where cell phones get set down.
If the effect is at all reduced in modern equipment, it is probably just that shielded cables got cheaper, or computer speakers are using smaller wires that pick up less interference.
In the 90s it was common for CB radios from passing cars to "bleed over" onto televisions. The CBs are the same now as they were then, but it is very unlikely you'll still get interference, because the TVs are designed better.
Thankfully, linux doesn't matter. I could switch to any BSD and keep running XFCE, keep running the entire same development toolchain, I could even copy all my application settings directly over to the new system just by mounting my old home directory.
Praise be to Freedom, praise be to *nix, praise be to Portability!
Where did XFCE get this lightweight reputation? It surely doesn't look very polished (based on looking over other people's shoulders only).
A long history of not adding new crap that is turned on by default, or trying to change people's paradigms. The install isn't particularly smaller, but there is generally less running.
As far as MATE, I was a user for 3 weeks, until I realized the maintainers were dominated by people who disagreed with specific Gtk3 decisions, but they didn't reject the desire to "innovate." They actually were emphasizing that, with an attitude sortof like, "we don't want to be backwards or not push new features, we just didn't like the features they pushed." So I jumped ship back to XFCE.
I don't want a new paradigm... and I won't have to have one. Thanks and praise to St. Ignucius!
I don't mind bloat itself. The real problem with the bloated software is the feature thrash and paradigm thrash that usually causes the bloat. Things that are bloated because they have lots of optional features run full speed, they just take longer to install. Features I don't use don't cause much damage. Even as a developer... parts of some bloated software I don't use, I won't need to change either.
That is the value of XFCE!!! They're not pushing a new paradigm onto unsuspecting users. Will a new version release "really matter?" No, never. Thank goodness for that! Users of something like XFCE don't want a new paradigm, they want shit that worked already to keep working, and they want the new shit to integrate with the old shit so people using the old shit can keep using it in exactly the same way that they used it before.
You came across zero XFCE as an end-user supporting end-user "desktops," that is normal. XFCE is heavily used, but by more technical people who want to make their own technical choices, and have their software respect those choices.
As a software developer, of course I encounter other XFCE users all the time. No, we don't care what you think of our choices. No, we're not asking you to run XFCE. If you don't already care about XFCE, or have a theory as to why you should care... please, don't care. It doesn't help us in any way.
Well, true, but it is different leaders. That is the difference. The new leaders threw out most of the work of the old leaders. They don't have time to fix their bugs, they're too busy embracing and extending shit with a new paradigm.
That is the true value of what RMS gave us, both with the GPL generally, and Emacs specifically. His gifts keep on giving, not even he could stop them. That is the Freedom that RMS imbued into Emacs, and supported by handing maintenance over to somebody else when the time came.
People have the right to disagree with RMS about Emacs precisely because of RMS's views and past involvement.
Personally, I think Free Software being "Open Source" with a permissive-enough license is what caused us to become Free of the shackles of proprietary software that used to hold everything down. Obviously that makes me a bit of a heretic from the RMS perspective. But it was the software movement, the extremists who were willing to do the work to write editors, compilers, a complete toolchain, that made all the later work possible. Once the whole toolchain was there, it was probably inevitable that pragmatists like Linus would launch open source to a new height. But they would have been unlikely to create the toolchain that made it possible in the first place.
Personally I think "embrace and extend" has made a major comeback, but now it is largely being done by GPL'd software. Instead of "embrace, extend, extinguish" we have, "patch, become maintainer, throw everything out and force a new paradigm." This is, IMO, the real thing that is threatening Software Freedom today.
News is always selectively-quoted horse shit. That is not news. So causing the discussion to happen is an unequivocal success. That most of what is said is crap, that is just life among talking apes.
Gosh, he's been on the scene telling you why your whole life. If you still don't get it, just read 2 paragraphs and you'll be there. It seems like, regardless of if you agree with him or not, that it would be worthwhile to have a basic understanding of the concept of "software freedom" in the context of the GPL. Even if you don't care, it is still worthwhile to spend 5 minutes on it because it gets discussed a lot by others, and you'll end up spending a lot more than 5 minutes reading about what people say.
Even if your only use for understanding the FSF theory of Software Freedom is to recognize the arguments and stop reading, you've still saved time by learning about their views.
That makes no sense, because most open source is written by... paid professionals... making market rates. That is true of GPL code, BSD code, Apache code, whatever.
You probably just don't understand the markets you're talking about. I doubt you would make that big a un-truth on purpose.
Maybe you can't use GPL code at work. Others are required to use GPL code at work, unless it was written in-house. Others aren't allowed to use any open source at all. Some can use proprietary compilers and workflows, some cannot.
You can't "steal" somebody's work if you use it according to the license. That is true of all the licenses, and all the licenses are used (primarily!!!!) by commercial interests.
He's presenting and supporting a position that he holds. He's not flaming anybody, he is participating in a rational public debate about something that he helped to start, which seems entirely fair. He chose not to keep maintaining emacs day to day, and so that is his role; to say what he thinks the people running it now should do.
What you're doing, though, is just to flame him... for speaking his mind... while trying to accuse him of being against the speaking of minds.
It should be very easy to form a rational basis for views contrary to his. Unfortunately you abandon the attempt right at the start, and resort instead of a basket of logical fallacies. His views are at an extreme end, it shouldn't be hard at all to be both contrary and reasonable.
You mean by saying words you didn't want to hear? Yes, it is such a "bitch" that you chose to learn what RMS has to say. Luckily, since we're all free here, you can bitch about him bitching, and I can bitch about you bitching about him bitching about whatever those bitches did.
The part I don't understand is why you "object" to others exercising the same freedom that you're using to... object.
I was in Ellensburg for St. Helens, it was dark for 3 days. The government said to wait for test results before going outside, in case of deadly gas, but we just waited until we saw birds taking dust baths. My family moved south about the time the roads were clear.
It only hit Hermiston. Mostly it was farther north.
Having already seen the media reports hours ago, it is already known that it is from Siberia, on the Pacific coast. This is where most of the rain in the NW comes from.
People speculating Mexico or Guatamala are simply new to the meteorology of the region. To local sources a glance at a recent eruption map makes and it is instantly obvious there is 1 known candidate, and it would explain it perfectly.
If he said something that implied "no risk," then he did say no risk.
Except that here, he didn't imply it at all. He said that unforeseen disasters "won't crack open the cases."
You may disagree with my general positions or conclusions, but you're way off base on the particular points you're arguing.
Claiming there is no risk is to totally misunderstand the situation. It doesn't matter how "casual" your conversation is, misunderstanding things so completely that you think there is "no risk" when there is actually significant known risk, that is just going to be wrong. There is no amount of "casual" that makes it less incorrect.
And it is no surprise that a person who understates the risk to the point of claiming there is "no" risk, will also miss the elephant in the room; there is huge risk because the material has to be moved to that location. So it is not just that the specific mistake I pointed out is egregious; it predicts the other egregious oversights.
I think it is funny you showed up at "news for nerds" and are worried that correcting significant factual errors that are infinite[sic] orders of magnitude away from the truth might be "over the top." It is not as if nuclear safety matters in the world, right?
You say I'm wrong about a general principle I didn't claim. And your generalization of what I said isn't accurate.
Just keep reading until what I said makes sense. When it makes sense and is a factually correct statement, you successfully comprehended what you read. If it seems factually incorrect, you're simply misunderstanding what was written. And from your response, it seems you went between the lines and added your own stuff, that turned out to be incorrect.
You obviously didn't understand what I said, so why comment on it? Just stop. I do know law, and speaking against things I didn't say, and pretending I said them, doesn't prove that you know law, or that I don't.
In the type of case being discussed, yes, following regulations intended to manage the risk of criminality by employees will indeed shield a company from accusations that they shouldn't have hired the person because of some claimed risk. The whole point is that the company isn't accused of having participated in a crime. That's what you seem to imply when you say, "Following a regulation is not a shield from liability." Nobody said that. It is a shield from claims that the specific act that was regulated (in this case, the background check of the driver) was negligent. If the regulation tells the company what background checks to do, and they did those checks correctly, then that does indeed shield them from accusations that their background checking is negligent. It absolutely shields them from claims their background checks were grossly negligent, which is what is usually going to need to be proved.
Instead of asking an open-ended "why" for something that is known, just look it up and then you can discuss it intelligently. If you don't know, how can you use it to argue?
If you do know, and you're asking "why" anyways, it sounds like FUD where you know the actual details don't support your position, but you want to raise the possibility that they might.
Uber is not a "private car service" in NY. There. That has been answered. If you want to go into the details, research it, and discuss it from a position of claiming to understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what Copyleft is. That is what GPL is supposed to be: using the copyright laws that were designed to protect proprietary interests in away that instead protects Software Freedom, that enforces Software Freedom.
Just because you refuse to understand the terms and arguments doesn't mean you've uncovered some hidden truth or something. You don't like Software Freedom. You find enforced Freedom too restrictive. You want to choose to be free, or not to be free. That is fine.
People probably mod you down because you pretend that people with a different view must just be stupid, or something. These are different choices based on different values, there is no utility in complaining about other people's license choices.
You know best what license to use for software you write, I know best what license to use for software I write, and RMS knows best what license to use for software that the FSF writes. This is all as it should be.
If you can't link GPL code at work, that is because of choices your boss made, not because of choices that RMS made or some implied deficiency in the GPL. Remember, people who choose the GPL want to be protected from your boss. People who don't share the values of the GPL are excluded for real reasons. You don't have to agree with those reasons or share their values to recognize that they have reasons that are based on their values, and they have every right to license their software in the way that they do. And you should be aware most of them are getting paid to write their code, most GPL code is written by paid programmers. Paid by companies. For-profit companies. With bosses who choose GPL. For business reasons. That doesn't make them less Free.
Now that persuasion has failed, I suppose he could fork it.
Or, choose a new maintainer. It might be a misread to assume the maintainer meant that RMS is irrelevant. When I read the thread, it seems to me to be more of a throwing-down-the-gauntlet, a my-way-or-fire-me type of statement.
It is worth reading the response from RMS, too:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/h...
He talks about how the whole GNU Project has to do what is best for the GNU Project, not each package doing what is best for that package. He invokes the responsibility of each package maintainer to do so, and he closes with: "If GNU packages do not support each other, it will be easier for many of them to fail."
His detractors will call him irrelevant whatever he does, but history has examples like XEmacs to show what happens when there is disagreement with the FSF over the GNU packages. Even when the users like the rejected features, the GNU versions have remained more popular than the forks, and ways of moving forwards with features that are in demand have always been found.
And as an emacs user, this is not a threat to the GNU package at all. Almost nobody would use a fork over this, because most emacs users already have to manage a .emacs config that includes non-standard bits. It would just be another third party package to include there.
RMS isn't against commercial (for profit) software at all. He's against software that is not completely transparent to the user about what it's doing (and that you can't fix yourself if it breaks).
The software that he is objecting to supporting is completely transparent.
You can also fix it if it breaks.
Here is the god damned svn: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-proje...
So why is he complaining here? What we can take from this is that your comments are worthless shit.
Your complaint is shit, because the point is both well known, and obvious to anybody who bothered to understand the background.
The point of the Free Software movement embodied in the Free Software Foundation is to create and support software that actively protects the users freedom by ensuring not only that the original software was transparent and user-modifiable, but also that it would protect you from being embraced, extended, and extinguished. Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position.
The counter argument isn't just, "hurr, whu? huh? you're shit." The counter argument is actually that if users have enough freedom available, that they can simply switch to something else and that "embrace, extend, extinguish" has been countered mostly by user demand for portable data formats, and SCOTUS decisions protecting the right to inter-operate.
The counter-counter argument is that users who really want Software Freedom can choose GPL software and not have to remain vigilant about each little example, each case where somebody is trying to include some proprietary bit and then get you to "need" it. They can instead simply remain vigilant about one thing; using Free Software. And then they're protected, and they can make business decisions with a higher level of predictability.
Most people can read these arguments and easily choose which one they prefer. The subjective choice, as with most subjective choices, are easy. But not everybody arrives at the same choices! And it is clearly in error to claim that one side didn't have a good point, or is "shit." They're just different points, based on different values and concerns.
I just wish there was a version of the debate where becoming a package maintainer and thrusting a new paradigm on the users was recognized as a removal of freedom, a form of "embrace, extend, extinguish."
Tin foil is easier to solder onto the board.
I heard that if you color the edges of the chip with a blue sharpie, then your RPi mp3 player will have cleaner sound. /s
I was recently working with some LED lighting modules with the bottom of the PCB exposed (and holding the LEDs) and the constant current controller had a big blob of epoxy on it. The other model where the LEDs were mounted on a different board, with the controller inside a metal housing, didn't have that.
Because the "systems" have evolved to be tolerant to the common frequencies of interference.
The signal strength has mostly gone up, not down, so without the improvement of the equipment receiving the interference, the problem would be worse now.
Just take a cheap powered computer speaker, remove the speaker wires, replace with the speaker wires from a 90s computer speaker, and place a cell phone next to it. You'll pick up lots of interference just off the unshielded wires.
Home stereo equipment picks up less interference in most cases because the long wires contain the fully amplified signal, which swamps most of the interference. In a powered computer speaker, the unshielded wires are at line level, and the amplification happens inside the speaker box, so the interference gets amplified along with the audio signal.
All it takes is either a shielded cable, or smaller wires, and the interference goes way down.
My cell phone still does that if I put powered speakers near it. Pretty much only would be close enough if they are computer speakers on a desk, most other audio setups with powered speakers aren't close enough to the places in the room where cell phones get set down.
If the effect is at all reduced in modern equipment, it is probably just that shielded cables got cheaper, or computer speakers are using smaller wires that pick up less interference.
In the 90s it was common for CB radios from passing cars to "bleed over" onto televisions. The CBs are the same now as they were then, but it is very unlikely you'll still get interference, because the TVs are designed better.
Thankfully, linux doesn't matter. I could switch to any BSD and keep running XFCE, keep running the entire same development toolchain, I could even copy all my application settings directly over to the new system just by mounting my old home directory.
Praise be to Freedom, praise be to *nix, praise be to Portability!
Where did XFCE get this lightweight reputation? It surely doesn't look very polished (based on looking over other people's shoulders only).
A long history of not adding new crap that is turned on by default, or trying to change people's paradigms. The install isn't particularly smaller, but there is generally less running.
As far as MATE, I was a user for 3 weeks, until I realized the maintainers were dominated by people who disagreed with specific Gtk3 decisions, but they didn't reject the desire to "innovate." They actually were emphasizing that, with an attitude sortof like, "we don't want to be backwards or not push new features, we just didn't like the features they pushed." So I jumped ship back to XFCE.
I don't want a new paradigm... and I won't have to have one. Thanks and praise to St. Ignucius!
I don't mind bloat itself. The real problem with the bloated software is the feature thrash and paradigm thrash that usually causes the bloat. Things that are bloated because they have lots of optional features run full speed, they just take longer to install. Features I don't use don't cause much damage. Even as a developer... parts of some bloated software I don't use, I won't need to change either.
That is the value of XFCE!!! They're not pushing a new paradigm onto unsuspecting users. Will a new version release "really matter?" No, never. Thank goodness for that! Users of something like XFCE don't want a new paradigm, they want shit that worked already to keep working, and they want the new shit to integrate with the old shit so people using the old shit can keep using it in exactly the same way that they used it before.
You came across zero XFCE as an end-user supporting end-user "desktops," that is normal. XFCE is heavily used, but by more technical people who want to make their own technical choices, and have their software respect those choices.
As a software developer, of course I encounter other XFCE users all the time. No, we don't care what you think of our choices. No, we're not asking you to run XFCE. If you don't already care about XFCE, or have a theory as to why you should care... please, don't care. It doesn't help us in any way.
Well, true, but it is different leaders. That is the difference. The new leaders threw out most of the work of the old leaders. They don't have time to fix their bugs, they're too busy embracing and extending shit with a new paradigm.
Why? Why in the ever living fuck did they rape their applications this way?
Embrace, extend (patch), become maintainer, replace all the code so you can reap the glory!
That is the true value of what RMS gave us, both with the GPL generally, and Emacs specifically. His gifts keep on giving, not even he could stop them. That is the Freedom that RMS imbued into Emacs, and supported by handing maintenance over to somebody else when the time came.
People have the right to disagree with RMS about Emacs precisely because of RMS's views and past involvement.
Personally, I think Free Software being "Open Source" with a permissive-enough license is what caused us to become Free of the shackles of proprietary software that used to hold everything down. Obviously that makes me a bit of a heretic from the RMS perspective. But it was the software movement, the extremists who were willing to do the work to write editors, compilers, a complete toolchain, that made all the later work possible. Once the whole toolchain was there, it was probably inevitable that pragmatists like Linus would launch open source to a new height. But they would have been unlikely to create the toolchain that made it possible in the first place.
Personally I think "embrace and extend" has made a major comeback, but now it is largely being done by GPL'd software. Instead of "embrace, extend, extinguish" we have, "patch, become maintainer, throw everything out and force a new paradigm." This is, IMO, the real thing that is threatening Software Freedom today.
News is always selectively-quoted horse shit. That is not news. So causing the discussion to happen is an unequivocal success. That most of what is said is crap, that is just life among talking apes.
i dont get it
Gosh, he's been on the scene telling you why your whole life. If you still don't get it, just read 2 paragraphs and you'll be there. It seems like, regardless of if you agree with him or not, that it would be worthwhile to have a basic understanding of the concept of "software freedom" in the context of the GPL. Even if you don't care, it is still worthwhile to spend 5 minutes on it because it gets discussed a lot by others, and you'll end up spending a lot more than 5 minutes reading about what people say.
Even if your only use for understanding the FSF theory of Software Freedom is to recognize the arguments and stop reading, you've still saved time by learning about their views.
That makes no sense, because most open source is written by... paid professionals... making market rates. That is true of GPL code, BSD code, Apache code, whatever.
You probably just don't understand the markets you're talking about. I doubt you would make that big a un-truth on purpose.
Maybe you can't use GPL code at work. Others are required to use GPL code at work, unless it was written in-house. Others aren't allowed to use any open source at all. Some can use proprietary compilers and workflows, some cannot.
You can't "steal" somebody's work if you use it according to the license. That is true of all the licenses, and all the licenses are used (primarily!!!!) by commercial interests.
He's presenting and supporting a position that he holds. He's not flaming anybody, he is participating in a rational public debate about something that he helped to start, which seems entirely fair. He chose not to keep maintaining emacs day to day, and so that is his role; to say what he thinks the people running it now should do.
What you're doing, though, is just to flame him... for speaking his mind... while trying to accuse him of being against the speaking of minds.
It should be very easy to form a rational basis for views contrary to his. Unfortunately you abandon the attempt right at the start, and resort instead of a basket of logical fallacies. His views are at an extreme end, it shouldn't be hard at all to be both contrary and reasonable.
You mean by saying words you didn't want to hear? Yes, it is such a "bitch" that you chose to learn what RMS has to say. Luckily, since we're all free here, you can bitch about him bitching, and I can bitch about you bitching about him bitching about whatever those bitches did.
The part I don't understand is why you "object" to others exercising the same freedom that you're using to... object.
I was in Ellensburg for St. Helens, it was dark for 3 days. The government said to wait for test results before going outside, in case of deadly gas, but we just waited until we saw birds taking dust baths. My family moved south about the time the roads were clear.
Presumably they found that on the comments page.
It only hit Hermiston. Mostly it was farther north.
Having already seen the media reports hours ago, it is already known that it is from Siberia, on the Pacific coast. This is where most of the rain in the NW comes from.
People speculating Mexico or Guatamala are simply new to the meteorology of the region. To local sources a glance at a recent eruption map makes and it is instantly obvious there is 1 known candidate, and it would explain it perfectly.
("Just rain" in my part of Oregon, too)
If he said something that implied "no risk," then he did say no risk.
Except that here, he didn't imply it at all. He said that unforeseen disasters "won't crack open the cases."
You may disagree with my general positions or conclusions, but you're way off base on the particular points you're arguing.
Claiming there is no risk is to totally misunderstand the situation. It doesn't matter how "casual" your conversation is, misunderstanding things so completely that you think there is "no risk" when there is actually significant known risk, that is just going to be wrong. There is no amount of "casual" that makes it less incorrect.
And it is no surprise that a person who understates the risk to the point of claiming there is "no" risk, will also miss the elephant in the room; there is huge risk because the material has to be moved to that location. So it is not just that the specific mistake I pointed out is egregious; it predicts the other egregious oversights.
I think it is funny you showed up at "news for nerds" and are worried that correcting significant factual errors that are infinite[sic] orders of magnitude away from the truth might be "over the top." It is not as if nuclear safety matters in the world, right?
You say I'm wrong about a general principle I didn't claim. And your generalization of what I said isn't accurate.
Just keep reading until what I said makes sense. When it makes sense and is a factually correct statement, you successfully comprehended what you read. If it seems factually incorrect, you're simply misunderstanding what was written. And from your response, it seems you went between the lines and added your own stuff, that turned out to be incorrect.
You obviously didn't understand what I said, so why comment on it? Just stop. I do know law, and speaking against things I didn't say, and pretending I said them, doesn't prove that you know law, or that I don't.
In the type of case being discussed, yes, following regulations intended to manage the risk of criminality by employees will indeed shield a company from accusations that they shouldn't have hired the person because of some claimed risk. The whole point is that the company isn't accused of having participated in a crime. That's what you seem to imply when you say, "Following a regulation is not a shield from liability." Nobody said that. It is a shield from claims that the specific act that was regulated (in this case, the background check of the driver) was negligent. If the regulation tells the company what background checks to do, and they did those checks correctly, then that does indeed shield them from accusations that their background checking is negligent. It absolutely shields them from claims their background checks were grossly negligent, which is what is usually going to need to be proved.
Instead of asking an open-ended "why" for something that is known, just look it up and then you can discuss it intelligently. If you don't know, how can you use it to argue?
If you do know, and you're asking "why" anyways, it sounds like FUD where you know the actual details don't support your position, but you want to raise the possibility that they might.
Uber is not a "private car service" in NY. There. That has been answered. If you want to go into the details, research it, and discuss it from a position of claiming to understand it.