it's just an engineering challenge. in the late 19th century, people would have scoffed at the idea of an electrical device with over 4 billion components in a few square centimeters that was mass produced.
Or imagine the most esteemed scientist of that day being told that a 200 meter long submarine vessel with a crew of 150 could be made with a power plant that only needed refueling every fifteen years, and that it could go for months underwater without surfacing, with weapons sufficient to destroy dozens of large cities.
may not be sustainable, like introducing itself with competition crushing prices. too bad for the competition, they are financial institutions that bought up the medallions, cartel style
in the midwest here, Uber probably introducing itself with competition-crushing pricing, but still not BS
And if they can't do that, they simply collude with a prosecutor who is bucking for high conviction rates to win a judgeship to railroad some innocent schlep by abusing the system, and then the "public' thinks the matter is settled and the pressure to actually find out truth goes away.
Hah -- good one!
Yes. But this time, all it would take for good to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it. Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.
Yes, but I think you mean until US laws EXPIRE on June 1, 2015. The most egregious parts of the Patriot Act are still set to expire on June 1, 2015. After that it appears that demanding ALL the records from a business or institution (or person?).... including phone records, email logs, text message logs, web site visitor logs, library records etc etc... will again require an actual constitutionally valid warrant naming the cause, the person and the things to be seized.
What foolish world do you live in where a global company with ad-based revenue has to support a niche project that flopped without large user base? They ARE thinking of the majority of users, their survival depends on it. Of course they cull the flops as they well should. There is no question of right or wrong, ethics or any other bullshit you seem to imply for their gratis services.
Your happy flying unicorn world only exists between your ears, no one has to abide by it
calling B.S. on you, ten miles from airport $14.50 Uber vs. $40 local taxi
No, the taxi drivers are arguing they can be the only ones to drive people to their destination and charge them for the ride.
Not quite. In Detroit a church started running a free van to help people who couldn't afford a car. The free bus was shut down by the taxi commission. Taxi commissions, in general, are against anyone giving anyone else a ride who isn't a taxi driver.
Not so, the exact opposite is the case, government shouldn't be allowed to hand out monopoly power and curb competition with business regulations. A blown tire can cause you to die, by the way. It's the FDA that should be illegal, so that people would have many more options in the market than they do now.
Yes, market remaining free is the not just 'some moral good', it is THE ONLY moral good we actually have. Free market is not based on violent coercion, it is based on voluntary exchange, that's the only moral compass a society has at all if any. Starting wars for profit, printing money to write off government debts (inflating the money supply), regulating businesses, so that businesses will have a way to destroy competition while lining up pockets of politicians, creating a welfare state and thus buying votes for politicians, none of it is moral at all, all of it is completely immoral.
The only morality we have as a society is in non-coercive voluntary exchange of ideas, labour and products.
A tire company is no different than a pharma company, are you telling me that quality of tires does not have any effect on human lives? Hmmm, have you driven a car?
A food company, a tire company, a construction company, a transportation company, energy company, you can make your tired anti-competitive anti-freedom argument about most real businesses, it does not change the facts.
The facts are everybody tries to protect their business model and if they are given a choice of using government rules (hacking laws) and giving themselves an advantage they WILL do so and they should do so, I have no interest a company that does not employ every tool in their disposal to rip the most benefits for themselves.
Instead of trying to create a police state, where every fart is regulated and taxed, maybe we should actually try the real free market solution, get rid o all government supports for everything, no income taxes, no money printing and also no welfare for anybody, person or company, no business regulations, maximum greed and maximum competition, that's what builds the most sustainable and sound economy, which means the wealthiest and at the end the most moral society.
Morality is NOT USING DEADLY FORCE to achieve your goals, but living in cooperation and there is no cooperation, there is only threat of deadly force when governments are involved.
AFAIC the market has to remain free, the company in question must be able to do this of-course. The actual problem is government issuing patents in tge first place. Patents and copyrights protected by governments are the actual problem. Beyond that the government rules that doctors must prescribe the brand name and can only prescribe generics if they are exactly the same is a problem. FDA is the problem, it should not even exist. Blaming a company for HACKING the government laws to extend its own profits is disingenious. Everybody tries to protect their work and profits, that is the principle of self interest, that is the reason for competition, greed is good. The real problem is when greed can be backed up by the force of a government.
Your givernment is causing you this pain. The company is making a rational choice. I am with the people making rational choices, allowing governments to destroy free market capitalism and competition by regulating business and allowing government to be involved in money is irrational choice.
On the one side we have the entrenched and largely ubiquitous gasoline infrastructure trying to keep electricity from becoming the dominant (good luck)... the recent upstart of hydrogen which requires you to rather carefully plan your commute... and LNG sitting there in the corner saying "Don't forget about me guys!"
It's like Verizon vs ATT on pay-per-view side and Sprint in it's own ring waiting for T-Mobile to arrive on PBS.
It's pretty easy to guess which is going to get the bigger numbers in terms of revenue.
Going the speed of light is bad for your age.
