Regulations do exist that make it more difficult for me to buy that chocolate bar. The store has to follow certain health and safety regulations, they have to pay their employees a certain amount, they have to keep their entrance free of snow and ice and basically spend time and money making themselves a safe place to do business. They may have to provide a certain number of parking spots. So what you are saying is that I can fight for my rights and take that chocolate bar.

Can you tell me if this same rule applies to jewelry stores?

If I go to the convenience store and take a chocolate bar and I get away with it, am I fighting for my right to have chocolate bars for free?

I'm not really understanding. What does this Facebook solotion do that couldn't be done on a piece of paper? The problem is the work involved in developing each lesson, not in the tracking of each lesson once it is developed. Does this Facebook plan eliminate the work involved in coming up with separate plans?

I always get jumped on for this, but to me the whole 'menu at the top' thing in OSX seems like a beta quirk that never went away. I just can't get used to the fact that they don't even attempt to put all the features I need right next to where the pointer is on the screen (ie. context menu). Mousing to the top of the screen to control a window that is at the bottom of the screen kills me and is probably the main reason why I would never want OSX as my primary OS.

Not to mention all the taxi drivers out there who have been out there working their asses off to own their own car one day. Allowing Uber to exist is a big 'screw you' to all of them.

I agree with you. I think a lot of the problem here is that many people feel they are out of touch with the legal system and that the government and system of laws don't really represent them. But that has nothing to do with Uber, and it doesn't give them the right to ignore said laws. It is a completely different issue. It should be discussed in some forum, yes. But let's not forget there are people doing this as a money making venture NOT as a philanthropic venture and that makes a huge difference.

If we're going to all of a sudden say Uber gets to ignore the rules but Napster, Bittorrent, Grooveshark etc etc do not then that's bullshit as well.

You could say the same for a lot of taxi companies; take away their dispatch center and they own nothing.

You know people can buy good ratings anywhere on the internet, right?

Oh yes and we all know reviews can be trusted. Recently in another article a slashdot user mentioned that the driver of the car that came for him wasn't even matching the picture in the Uber profile.

You forgot:

6) I only look at what I can get now and not what things will be like ten years from now.

Uber is new and shiny. The drivers and the cars they have bought to do Uber are new and shiny. Give it ten years and a lack of a taxi industry to 'shine' over and they will be worse then the current taxi industry I assure you.

There is a process in place to adapt the law. Everyone else uses this process. It's not the fault of the government or the people that Uber doesn't have enough patience and fortitude for the process.

Even Uber knows that it wouldn't work. How long would they last if every 2nd or every 3rd vehicle you called was a rusted heap with smoke billowing out the hood and the exhaust pipe?

If Uber doesn't want to be a Taxi company, then they should really stop focusing so much on carrying people around in cars.

I have a front door on my house. If I have a company who is in charge of opening and closing the front door, I want to be damn sure they close it as securely as possible. If they leave it open, then there is a big problem.

People have their lives stolen. It's not the same as dying but it's serious.

You have no idea what you are talking about!! How big is YOUR vibrator collection?