Perhaps the research could help over time those distinctions exist and pair like-minded people together.

I thought most modern games already had systems to at least try and match players with similar skill levels.

Why not let abuse take place online in virtual environments?

Because it sucks and leads to much more offline abusive behavior by otherwise good people after they have been repeatedly harassed.

Instead, this psychology of banning and throttling likely leads to more offline abusive real-life suffering.

The opposite is true. Because the natural abuser is inclined to fight through any system thrown at them, throttling and other attempts drain their energy more than simply letting them post would, leading to more relaxed (or at least less) behavior offline.

Not to mention, we all know that trolls online are probably losers who would never in a billion years have the nerve to say or do anything offensive offline...

Was only marks STOPPED police cars, that are also by the side of the road with someone in them. You (the person using Waze) wouldn't mark a cop parked to eat lunch, or just driving around (how could you mark a car driving around? It's not like Waze is selling GPS tracking magnets... hmm...)

So for someone thinking of robbing a bank or anyone else, all you know is where the police cars are that are in speed traps. At any given moment there are a ton of police cara simply driving all about, that Waze has no indication.

Using Waze does not mean you can speed like crazy, just that you can keep up with traffic without worrying about being singled out for a stop because of the color of your car or yourself.

Waze is also REALLY useful to know when there's traffic ahead (people telling Waze where traffic is beats every other mapping solution I have used) and also hazards like giant potholes, or cars stuck in the road.

In the past the oil industry was a much bigger part of the Texas economy than it is now. It's still a large part, but there is a ton of high-tech stuff all around Texas - Apple is building all of its Mac Pro units in Texas, for example...

They also have a lot of international trade, including a major airport and shipping port too. All of that adds to economic diversity.

they simply found pak'ma'ra toilet habits to be utterly repulsive

Ah, so the pak'ma'ra used German toilets then.

Sliders started the best, but then fell apart. If it could have continued and ended as strong as it started, I would have voted for it over the others.

What they propose is not going to happen simply because of this:

He calls for the state government to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive data, relying on outside auditors and experts.

Outside auditors doing anything in CA government? We'll see that only when all else is lost, and people are starting to go to prison.

If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living.

If the cost of driving went substantially up, then taxis and public transport would also increase in cost. At some level of increase, no I could not do what I do.

That's not the case of uber

Why not? New service, UberRickshaw. Many Uber rides are short enough that would work.

It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.

since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure

Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.

âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients.

No, I really can't - mostly I'm driving about 30 minutes at 50-60MPH average to reach them. Considering the fact that as a consultant I get paid by the hour it would cost me vast sums of money to bike to them, and probably an hour longer each way taking any public transport (I've looked into that). A cab is not a bad idea if you live in a city but I'm working between multiple areas and also take very long road trips all the time (partly for business) so it would be stupid to also spend money on a cab when the marginal extra cost of using my car is vastly less.

it's not an absolute requirement for your business

My clients disagree which is why I drive to them. If I don't have a job because I do not drive, it's a requirement.

Your argument is way, way weak. There is no "key difference". The fact is that driving for Uber and driving friends around has zero actual difference in terms of external risk or ability. That's the core argument where you simply cannot distinguish, thus either everyone needs a commercial license or no-one does.

Even as a contractor you may not deduct mileage driving to and from clients as that is considered non-commercial commuting by the IRS

Good thing I listen to my accountant and not idiot AC posters on Slashdot:

One way to avoid the harsh commuting rule is to have a home office that qualifies as your principal place of business. In this event, you can deduct the cost of any trips you make from your home office to another business location.

From one of a billion links that tell you how the world actually works

I mean, what consultant these days is not going to have a home office? Sheesh.

Most states, for example, have a taxi drivers endorsement for their regular drivers license.

Yes they do. The point is that is as stupid as it is unnecessary; it's just a revenue collection scheme and has zero to do with keeping people safe (the supposed intent).

You are not being paid to drive to work. You are being paid for the work you do there.

I am a contractor. I drive to clients, all of my driving to clients is directly related to the job.

I also write iOS applications, sometimes I drive around testing the GPS aspects of the apps. In those cases I am billing while driving.

Why do I need a commercial license tags for that again? How is that in any was reasonable except you simply want more money from me and that seems like a fine angle to use to extract it? It wouldn't make me any safer to have a license where I answer questions about driving tractor trailers. Insurance wise I had damn well better be covered for anyone else getting injured in my car anyway, and insurance is already calculated based in part on miles you drive per year (not to mention Lyft/Uber provide extra insurance on top of what you have).

Why would I need commercial license/tags to drive a few people around few days a week? I already do that with family and friends. Why is is so different when it's someone I don't know at the start?

Maybe the DMV should streamline the process instead of lowering the requirements?

Part of the Commercial Drivers License Test includes questions like "The phrase gross combination weight is figured by adding together what?". Is it reasonable to require you know the answer when you are just driving a person around in a passenger car?

The reason why the commercial drivers license test is way too onerous is that it's really meant for people driving trucks or other specialized vehicles. What aspect of the existing drivers license test does not cover what a person just driving a few other people around in their own car would not cover? After all, that's exactly the same as if they were simply driving friends and family around... if the test can't help you be a decent driver doing that, then improve the basic test instead of requiring you to know a truck swinging wide is called Offtracking...

Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance?

They don't really, this is why Uber and Lyft both provide supplemental insurance for drivers.

Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money

That's bullshit because the cost of personal insurance is partly factored in by miles driver per year, so that risk is ALREADY INCLUDED.

If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.

No more than people who drive a lot for drives or commute already are.

There may have been a perception of power which may be enough

How? That does not seem reasonable.

Either way, it's incredibly stupid for someone in his position to get involved at all with a current student.

What he did is INCREDIBLY stupid. I'm not saying he does not bear primary fault in this. He had the most to lose also, it was just idiotic. Although if you were playing devils advocate, couldn't you claim he had a sexual addiction that compelled him to ask? That sounds as reasonable as saying the women had some kind of illness that compelled them to submit; in fact his actions speak even more strongly to there being a mental issue that overrode strong rational and moral reasons not to act as he did. The potential impact to him was proportionality much greater than any one of the women, exactly because of his position and status - and yet he appears to have contacted hundreds of women. How can you look at that and not claim he was mentally ill?

What the women did was stupid also though. They had no reason to send him nude images or video. At any time they could have simply ceased communication, and gotten what they wanted (physics education) from some other source.