Government regulations on cars for "safety" existed before car crashes existed. Look at the requirements for the first driver's licenses. Driving tests came about many years after licensing started, so the first ones couldn't have been about safety.

Now, the regulated cab drivers rip off consumers, and the unregulated ones are more fair and provide better service.

Can undercover cops go hitchhiking, and offer you a $20 for gas at the end of the trip, and if you take it, arrest you for driving without a valid license?

They don't even have a column for suicide (thank the Christians for that one). So someone who gets drunk or takes pills, leaves a suicide note, then hops in the car, hits max speed and drives into (or off) a cliff will be properly marked as "DUI and speed-related". These statistics are used to push for lower limits on speed and drinking, when neither of those rules would have any effect on someone deliberately trying to kill themselves.

The statistics don't work. Uber or otherwise.

Where? Everywhere I've lived, Taxis needed a commercial license. That requires drug testing (from federal rules), and hearing and extra vision tests (from state rules) for the places I've held a commercial driver's license.

They never could. Thats why the exec wished for a smear campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Wikipedia says so: "Nader claims that GM responded to his criticism of the Corvair by trying to destroy Nader's image and to silence him."

I thought you knew how to use Google. I can send you the LMGTFY link, if you like. That was the first result.

The full context sis that he'd wish he could do it, because he feels the media has been unfair. Not that it was a plan, or even a serious thought.

This is America, we want both! No middle (not in politics, no middle class). You are either inside the system, or outside the system, and that will continue until those outside the system revolt and we get Civil War II (coming to gaming stores near you).

I think that's not correct. There are lots of women fleeing some countries where their choices are marry, or get a job at McDonald's (or the local equivelent). So they leave, and turn to prostitution because they chose to not work a lifetime in McD's. They see a few years in prostitution as a "good" thing, and a choice they made to avoid a lifetime in McD's.

But for whatever reason, the media seems to stick to the idea that they are unwilling participants, even if 90% could walk up to the nearest police man (and there are plenty), confess to violating terms of their visa, and ask for help being deported "home" and be working in McD's by the end of the week. And they choose not to.

You say that like it's a "bad" thing. But that's the goal of every corporation. So, by your definition, every corporation is "bad", right?

The Uber reps are claiming that the laws the cab companies are quoting are wrong. Cab companies want them regulated as taxi services (provably the wrong thing in almost all jurisdictions). Uber wants to be regulated as a hitchhiker service, with a tip. In reality, they should be somewhere in between, a private car service, where the driver doesn't need a medallion, but they should have commercial endorsements for commercial activities.

So Uber's response, is "we'll treat ourselves in the best legal way (hitchhiker service) until proven otherwise." It's a legally sound stance, many larger companies have done the same thing.

They are abiding by the law. Just not the set of laws the cab cartels want them operating under.

Hitchhiking is an alternative to taxis, and doesn't have any of the rules around it taxis do.

Think of couch surfing. Paid couch surfing isn't regulated like a hotel. You don't pay the special hotel taxes. None of the hotel regulations apply to taking $20 for someone crashing in a spare bedroom for a night. Uber's point is that if nobody has a problem with that - the hotel cartels aren't spending millions to come after couchsurfing.com or whatever, then why would anyone have a problem with "monetizing" hitchhiking?

Next time we land sick in Amsterdam, I'll go to http://www.spaarneziekenhuis.n... instead and see if they charge. Maybe the rules are different for EU citizens in the EU, vs visitors.

From my experience, visitors are charged, and you are refusing to consider my anecdote, as it conflicts with your opinion.

But they don't (once you correct for recividism). A black man without a record is as likely to commit a violent crime tomorrow as a white man without a record. The system is just set up so that a black man is much more likely to get prison time than a white man doing the same thing.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

There's a heirarchy of bluff. Letter. Letter threatening to involve a lawyer (often asking for contact information to the legal department). Letter from lawyer.

If they were serious, the first letter would have been from the lawyer. The second act is sue. Those that send an impotent letter of whine before the lawyer letter ensure ignoring, as they've demonstrated inability/unwillingness to follow through.

The *only* exception to that is when the letter (from you, or your lawyer) is sent certified mail and indicates it is official legal notice of intent to sue. But that doesn't need a lawyer. The only time I sent one of those, the other party called up and apologized, fixed the issue, then sent an email full of profanity. She stole my car and put a lien on my house when I asked for it back. She had a lawyer draft the lien, but my notice of lawsuit (required for small claims court) got the lawyer to tell her she was crazy. I'm sure she lied to him to get his help in the first place.