So, somehow.. my standing up for other peoples right to have an opinion means I'm the traitorous coward? Obviously anything you say at this point is complete BS. Enjoy your hypocrisy.

Wow..... you're a fucking moron. I mean, a really big fucking moron. How you do you actually function(or do you?) as a member of society? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't have internet, cell phones, satellites, etc. So, yes. Shit is fucking different now. Pre-existing laws just have no way of taking into account modern technology. I keep having to repeat myself, but you and others don't seem to grasp it. How the laws are interpreted when it comes to modern technology isn't cut and dry. Your opinion, is your opinion. Other people's opinion, is there opinion. Those people have EVERY right to believe as they do, without assholes like you chewing them out. It isn't until you get a consensus on those opinions, that you have any standing on what should and should not be. So, take your sanctimonious attitude and shove it up your ass... You might also want to pull the stick out while you're at it. And for the record, I'm all for maintaining our supposed freedoms. I'm just tired of fucking pricks like you thinking your opinion is the only one that matters.

I'm not the fucking twat that can't understand that shit is fucking different now than it was back then. That the whole fucking world and the way we interact in it is fucking different. So, kindly do yourself a favor and get over yourself. People have different fucking opinions. It's a fact of fucking life. The liberties you personally believe in and how you view they should be interpreted are not set in fucking stone. As a society it is up to us to decide if/when/what should change. It's not only up to you and your fucking narrow mindedness.

I take issue with fucking idiots that can't stand other people have differing opinions on where the lines should be drawn between security and freedom. Because YES, some compromises had to be drawn. They were drawn from the very beginning. Also, they have to be examined and determined how they fit in a modern technically advanced world. Believe it or not, cell phones(or whatever other advancement comes up) didn't exist when they were first written. It's all fine and dandy to believe things should be one way and want them to be that way. It's another to believe someone else is inferior because they have a fucking difference of opinion.

Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is. Also, some loss of freedom is considered acceptable. Obviously, this wasn't lost on the founding fathers either.

The question comes down to where to draw the line. How should the laws be written/interpreted when taking into account modern society? I'd be one of these "bootlickers" because my opinion doesn't match up to yours (in principal, not in this particular case. Fuck stingrays and all the BS involved). You and others like you have the right to defend your freedoms as you see they should be implemented, just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.

Except, it is. "I couldn't care less" is a figurative statement. It's impossible to make the statement, without being able to care less. Thus, "I could care less", while being a bungled idiom is literally more correct. The original comment was meant as a thin joke about the nature of the idiom.

While I believe they overreacted, humans are easily capable of lying to get the results they want.

Oddly, in most cases "could care less" is actually more accurate. They at least took the time to comment.

But, it's not that the music is unwanted... It's just easier to get it for free(to fairly cheap), via streaming services. I have most of my music as MP3 on my NAS at home. My roommate still just uses youtube because it's easier.

Believe it or not, it's quite easy for humans to make mistakes. That isn't to say it definitely was a mistake, but without proof it was intentional we should only take their word it wasn't. This also doesn't absolve them of the mistake. Regardless of intent, it's false advertising.

It's fine if you took my original statement as a direct offence, but it wasn't meant that way. Your argument was stupid, plain and simple. It wasn't supposed to be an attack on you, just your flawed argument. I previously explained part of why commercial cost more, further explanation is below. I didn't have the time or desire to deal with it further when I was at work. It came out at least partially wrong. However, that doesn't absolve you from being a complete fucking twat to me.

The simplest way to explain why you were wrong is that the insurance companies themselves charge more for commercial use. It sounds like a tautology, but it isn't. They base their rates on statistics. If the statistics say there is a higher risk of either more or larger payouts under commercial use, then there must actually be a higher risk. From what I can find, there is higher liability when a commercial entity is involved in an accident.

I really don't know what your fucking issue is. I mean, really. I don't. The only thing I can tell is you like to be a fucking asshole to random people on the internet. I did nothing, except state that your argument is idiotic and that I didn't have time to deal with it further. You were then free to continue on with your fucking life at that point, but felt that insulting me would be more beneficial to you. Enjoy your wasted excuse of a life.

Wow, what a fucking asshole. It's not my fault you've got your head up your ass. Get over yourself.

Wow... Ok, I can't handle that level of idiocy today. If you can't tell the difference between doing something as a job, or not.... I'm done.

Insurance companies should not (don't) have to cover ride-sharing under a personal policy. The drivers are for-hire drivers, in some capacity. Those drivers wouldn't spend as much time on the road, and would have fewer passengers in the car, if it weren't for their commercial activities. That means more chances of an accident, and a higher payout if/when there is one.They definitely have every right to require you pay extra, or not be covered when "on duty".

As for Uber providing coverage, I did read that at least one did offer coverage for anything the insurance company doesn't cover. My statement was more generalized to cover the industry as a whole. As far as ease of implementation goes, I think it's best for the company to cover the driver/passenger when on duty. The company has direct access to when the drivers are active and be able to provide coverage for those times. There would be no confusion, no extra work to determine whether the accident was covered or not.