You believe that mobile phone operated and called computer systems don't exist? Or that there aren't laws in certain countries/cities that ban them? Or that there's no reason not to have outdated taxi systems that don't serve the public as well, or what? What is it you are claiming is bat-shit crazy, and has no reality?

Perhaps you should calm down and think about the topic before you post again.

Oddly enough, it looks like you're the one throwing a tantrum with that post.

What you said sounds stupid, but it's not remotely what I said, nor anything close to the meaning of what I said. AKA a strawman.

Seems to me the answer to this abuse is to make badges non-transferable and apply to the driver. When a driver retires, dies or stops paying his dues, then a new badge becomes available from the licensing authority.

And the best people to operate bus systems are the state.

Because there's no reason in the 21st century that mobile phone operated systems, that work for everyone, shouldn't be allowed.
Not that Uber should get unique treatment for their company, but the laws should change such that such systems are allowed.

It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost. Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.

They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.

I think the reality is somewhere between the two. It's nuanced. Few things are black and white.

There is a value to regulated taxis. I support them. But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem. And civil disobedience is a legitimate way to highlight bad law.

That's simply and easily verifiably not true, in that I am an example of the public, and I value regulated taxis over unregulated ones. For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers etc. And there's plenty more like me. I suggest more than agree with you.

Well it kind of does. In that the passenger knows in advance they are looking for a car with an Uber sign, and they have been allocated one in advance by the system. Other drivers might try to steal the fare, but at least the passenger knows better where they stand, and know what to head for if they want the prearranged price.

Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.

Possibilities:
1) The examples are in different places. They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
2) The "fares" are different people. A tourist is going to be very desirable and a local commuter very undesirable, as in an unregulated city, the taxis can charge what they can get away with. Which is a hell of a lot more with a rich tourist than a local.

Which is beside the point. Consensus isn't about truth, it's about burden of proof.

Suppose Alice and Bob both try to make a perpetual motion machine. Alice claims she has failed, but Bob claims he has succeeded. The scientific community treats Alice's claims of failure without skepticism but it automatically assumes that Bob has made a mistake somewhere.

Does that seem unfair to Bob? Well, imagine you're a rich guy and Alice and Bob are both applying to you for a job. Bob says you should give the job to him because he's your long-lost fraternal twin your parents never told you about and which the hospital hushed up for some reason. When you mention this to Alice she freely admits she is not related to you. You automatically believe Alice, so is it fair to Bob to be skeptical of his claims?

It's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In either case Bob can prove his claim, it's more complicated and time consuming because he has to explain what went wrong with all the prior knowledge. Alice's claims in either case are consistent with what you reasonably believe to be true so you can reasonably assume she's correct.

Er, no. That's like positing science going off the rails because it replaced instrumentation with data.

Keep looking. Slashdot is an old design, most links you click on are not underlined.

And there's no real difference between a "link" and a "button" or an "icon". They are all just clickable targets that do something.

That "latest craze" you refer to has been with us a long time. The underlined links and button web you are imagining was the web in it's infancy in the 1990s. Thank god those days are gone.
http://www.computerhistory.org...
And note in that picture, even then only some links were underlined. And some functions have both buttons and links to them.
But the worst sin is how ugly it was.
Only one site, but an important one of the time, and most were far worse!

Animation can provide feedback, confirmation, notification and/or delight. All of which are worthwhile in their place.

Talk of too much animation is pointless unless you are specific. You don't improve a UI by simply making it less animated any more than you improve a UI by simply removing elements. Every detail needs consideration. As does the question of whether UI should be added in order to make another UI item optional.