Yes, the anti-nuclear movement told you that would happen, but you ignored them. That was a failure, but it was largely yours.

Riiiiiight. Blaming the victim, real nice. It's not the environmentalists' fault that these old plants are dangerous. That's your fault. You put yourself in the pro-nuclear camp; you want to be there, you can take your share of the responsibility for making this situation possible. Instead, of course, of blaming the people who warned you. Fuck you for that.

Citation needed.

UCLA already proved otherwise. It's obvious why you didn't log in. You only have lies to tell.

Wow, you put all the hypocrisy on one line. That was convenient of you.

Great. It's in no way distinguished from the post which I was addressing, then. Providing a link doesn't mean one has provided meaningful evidence.

Oh no, I'm quite clear that our driving tests are pathetic. But my point is, you're either qualified to drive a car with other people in it, or you aren't.

Nonsense.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. The available evidence equally supports the assertion that marijuana prevented it from happening earlier.

Ironically, it's the small minds that conclude that they know what's best for everyone else.

Well congrats, you've just completely mischaracterized the situation. Concern about diminishing of a profit center (Big Pharma) sends legislators into a tailspin. This is why we can't have nice things. Also, they can't admit they've been lying to us through their corrupt fucking faces all this time. The legislators know that weed is harmless, that's what the science has always said.

I'm imagining a comparison that does not completely miss the point, as yours does. This is like a house being built to code by a non-contractor, and that non-contractor being told that he can only be paid hourly and that he'll have to have a contractor sign off on the design. I live in a house right now whose design is total shit and which was built sloppy as fuck and it managed to get signed off by a contractor and pass code. It proves absolutely fuck-all except that the state (or county) has managed to collect some lucre, just like a taxi license proves nothing about driving ability that is not already allegedly proven by european driving tests.

The same as every other nation. They have devised a mechanism to extract a pound of flesh from each cab driver, and they are short on dinner. These ghoulish cannibals profit from causing others to suffer. They are motivated to engage in anticompetitive restraint of every aspect of life by profit.

If I get into a car in London, I can be sure that google can get me to my destination blah blah blah. Who gives a shit? What year is it?

1. Yes, please. Every licensed driver should be capable of driving a cab. It is, after all, simply a series of trips.
2. We're already all required to carry insurance.

Personally, I like 3. National health care along with 0. Safer cars for all. We have the first part. The last part would go a long way to reducing the burden of insurance.

Application: We have taxi licensing here, too. which also requires registration and a driving license. Won't require a physical, but national health insurance will probably change that. Already requires that you can see, which is part of the driving licensing test. Already requires that we're assumed to be physically and mentally able to drive, which is part of the driving licensing test (supposedly. Yes ours are woefully bad.) A criminal record will not automatically disqualify you, which is a good thing, unless you're trying to divide your nation into criminals with no incentive not to be criminals, and everyone else. You do need a clean motor vehicle report just to keep the necessary insurance. Mostly we have no proof of knowledge, but google knows more than the best-trained cabbie so who gives a shit? So does a $100 Garmin.

In conclusion, you really have no more requirements to become a taxicab driver than we do, so the only thing you potentially have to be smug about is that your basic driving tests are harder than ours. Unfortunately, since you still seem to need to certify taxi drivers separately to ensure that they can drive, which is after all what they actually do, it doesn't seem like your driving tests are actually more meaningful than ours. If they were, everyone in your country would be considered a sufficiently good driver to operate a cab, because that is in fact the basic skill involved.

Actually, I read it as assuming competence where there in fact is none. Europeans brag about how much testing they have to go through before they can get licensed, as if they all had to be exemplary drivers just to get a license. Now you're telling us that this isn't true, that the average driver isn't capable of driving a car. Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.

So although you just acknowledged that Berlin deliberately denies its choice and mobility by presenting the proof thereof, Uber is retarded?

Yes, a law which deliberately denies choice and mobility specifically for the purpose of profit protectionism. Just like Uber says.

That's not what Uber does. Uber enables citizens to do business, and they get a cut for enabling that business. Except, of course, in places which deny their citizens choice and mobility in pursuit of profit.

Yes, moderator. We get it, you're fat, and you'd rather mod people down than do something about it, because you're also pathetic. Go choke on a french fry.

--fat guy

P.S. Slashdot: this comment will not improve with age. Let me post the fucking thing already, you twats.