It's really not that simple. You may want to look into the kind of cash reserves insurance companies are required to have on hand at any given time (this is public information, regulated by your state). They're huge at the same time they're smaller than what most insurers think is more realistic.

If they could do it, this would definitely hurt Uber's cashflow. Then they'd have to have their own underwriting standards, eligibility requirements, etc. because Uber would be batshit insane to offer indemnity to ANYONE who signs up regardless of driving record. All of this costs money and requires in-house expertise to implement. They would have to fully be a "ride-sharing company" and partially be a commercial insurance company, simultaneously. Oh and that's also ignoring a crucial difference: maybe Uber could somehow overcome all of these problems and "self-insure" ... if all of their drivers are employees. If their drivers are contractors, then they are not "self" insuring at all and would in fact be a full-fledged insurance company, complete with having to follow all of the (numerous and complex) regulations attached to that.

There is a reason that even very large multinational corporations purchase commercial insurance policies for their drivers (who are typically employees) instead of self-insuring. If Uber were going to do anything like this at all, they would require their drivers to obtain commercial insurance policies and subsidize the extra cost. By far, that would be the most sensible thing to do.

The problems Uber is having boil down to this: they want to look like a taxi company, act like a taxi company, and operate in the same market as a taxi company, but they don't want to be a taxi company. I wish them good luck because I have always believed that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as they alone bear the consequences, but none of this is even slightly surprising.

What follows is my personal opinion only - if you want real advice talk to an insurance agent or lawyer. Anyway, as a matter of fact, by requiring them to obtain commercial insurance, Kansas is only repeating what's already in the agreement these drivers have made with their insurance companies. If any Uber driver has an accident and files a claim under a personal-lines policy, and the insurance company finds out they were a driver-for-hire, they're likely to lose their insurance anyway. When you signed your policy you gave the insurer all kinds of investigatory powers, so they probably will find out. They will do everything possible to cancel the personal-lines policy at that point. Whether they can also deny the claim and leave you 100% on the hook for the full liability depends on your state's regulations, but if they can, I'm sure they would.

Do most Uber drivers fully understand this? If so, are they just counting on nothing going wrong, or not getting caught if something does go wrong?

Indeed. If you actually look at actuarial data, you will find that there are good reasons for the price difference between personal and commercial insurance. The commercial vehicles have far greater exposure to risk. I know it's popular to bash insurance companies - hell, I dislike American corporatism myself - but when people do that from a position of ignorance, it doesn't help.

One important difference: in the US you get a license by memorizing a few signs and traffic laws. They will tell you "driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right" but in practice it's treated like a right unless you get multiple DUIs or something (even then, a few years later - or less - the irresponsible adult can re-apply). The result is lots of unskilled drivers on the road, including those with more than enough experience to know better.

It's regrettable but the more the USA continues down its current commercial and philosophical path, the more people tend to do the minimum even when the minimum (in this case, of skill) is grossly inadequate. It doesn't take much effort to gradually get just a little better at something day by day, but it does take an awareness that one should do so. Here driving is widely seen as nothing more than a means to an end, not something in which to invest any skill because the lives of oneself and others may depend on it. Actually almost everything is viewed that way. It's the same reason in computing, there are so many permanent newbies - they managed to avoid accidentally picking up any new knowledge day by day even when a computer is an important tool without which they can't earn a living.

So unsurprisingly, I see unsafe practices every day I drive. Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular. On a related practice, I have no idea why it's so important to get beside somebody and carefully maintain the exact same speed, even though to appear there they had to initially move faster, but I simply cannot drive a few miles down an interstate without seeing it, even during low-traffic hours like 4am. I think it's just a mindless "go with the flow, do what everyone else is doing" herd mentality -- that's consistent with what I see elsewhere in this culture. It could also be some psychology of feeling powerless in one's own life, causing them to want to control others by blocking passing lanes and creating hazards. Also, during heavy rain, many don't seem to understand that visibility is vastly improved by not hanging out in the massive backwash from 18-wheelers; this is really not difficult to comprehend, but to do so, one would have to be aware enough to consider it.

As I entertain no delusions about controlling what other people do, my main goal while driving is to keep as much distance between myself and others as I can. They can drive in tightly clustered packs with no room to maneuver (and sometimes, terrible visibility) if that pleases them. Whether it means speeding up or slowing down, I'll be the guy between the nearest two packs.

Please educate me if I am wrong, but I understand that in most European nations, acquiring a license means you actually have to demonstrate skill with maneuvering the vehicle and it's not nearly so easy. The failure rate for license applicants is significantly higher, and since driving means we're talking life and limb, that sounds quite reasonable. If you have only driven in Europe you might even find my descriptions difficult to believe, but I promise you I see this and worse every day.

TL:DR right? I really think it boils down to culture. The USA once had a culture that promoted responsible adulthood but that was a long time ago. What's promoted now is convenience and the idea that nothing is ever one's own fault. The focus has shifted from responsibility to a childish concern about fault-and-blame that prevents so many from learning that cause precedes effect. It's really amazing how many things boil down to that. Ergo, what works great in Europe might not work here, even if it really should be that way. Would you offer unlimited liability coverage to these people? While I don't normally advocate using technology to solve social problems caused by human stupidity and irresponsible adults, I really cannot wait until fully autonomous self-driving cars become mainstream.

Touche. With a scalpel.

However, I will never be stuck in that situation. :)

Police should be required to get a warrant to get any information that I can not get without a warrant.

The federal and state governments have more constraints than you do.

The president can't get rid of existing laws. That's congress, and (because they usurped the power to do so), the courts. Learn how the system works. Then you might have some chance of making relevant commentary and/or writing accurate sarcasm.

Triangulating a location based on radio waves you are emitting isn't anything special.

Technically, no.

For the government, as it is explicitly constrained from legitimately doing so by the constitution, yes, it is something special.

And by "we", of course you mean the tiny, tiny minority that isn't... sitting in front of their television, a string of drool trailing from their partially open mouths, while the latest reports of Kim Kardassian's antics reflects from the their glazed eyes and the Doritos grease spots around their mouth. Or the deluded information-poor who consume Faux News broadcasts as if they were (cough) actual journalism.

Metaphorically speaking, little tiny soapboxes located at huge distances from one another, that no useful number of people pay any significant attention to... yep, that's pretty much right where we are.

It's not a slippery slope. It's a deep pit, and we're at the bottom already. They've just painted the sides with jingoistic and fear-inspiring slogans, that's all. The only way out is to stand on each other's shoulders, but that would require the use of backbone, which our society currently lacks in any significant sense.

Do they? I've had to download complete games for both Windows and Mac for the updates. As long as they keep both, I'm happy. I'd hate to go back to the era of installing a game and then having to install all of the updates. With the speed of Internet connections now, even a 10-20GB download is not really a bottleneck for enjoyment.

The main fail with Diakatana was expectation management. Prior to launch it had so much hype about how it would totally redefine gaming. And then they released a game that was... okay. Not particularly good, not particularly bad, and with a few issues that, if fixed, could have made it much better.

Well said.

From TFS:

"We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage."

In other words, we assert you probably know your privacy is being violated by existing technical means, so we'll just ignore the obvious constitutional instructions about warrants when dealing with personal information -- whereabouts, in this instance. Because the constitution is abused and/or ignored by most judges now, so that's ok, right? RIGHT?

Let's say some people commit murder in parks. Because they do. So, using the "reasoning" of the utter morons in this court:

We find no reason to conclude that park users lack facts about the prevalence of murder in parks.

And therefore, it's perfectly ok. Mr. Murderer, go forth and murder some more. Next Case!

They are the world's cheapest launch service provider and that is without re-usability. They will likely become the dominant launch provider in the world. If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry. Musk doesn't think small.

The same rockets used for the launch escape will also be used as a propulsive landing system that can land like a helicopter.