Which, regardless of anything that Uber might want to claim about themselves, is only applicable if the drivers are not licensed as cab drivers within the province, and even then, their beef is with the drivers, not the company.

So all that proves is that traffic was sent to imitate an ad view, not that the ads were actually displayed anywhere.

Which portions of the Highway Traffic Act are they alleged to actually be in violation of?

If they were no more specific in their actual allegation than the article was, Uber can win this one easily.

Forensiq, an online technology firm fighting fraud for advertisers, found over 5,000 apps displayed unseen ads...

If the ads were unseen, how do they know they were displayed in the first place?

from TFA, mass of the planet is 5x Earth Mass.

I'm not sure what you were reading.... From the page linked to the summary:

Scientists do not know if Kepler-452b can support life or not. What is known about the planet is that it is about 60 percent larger than Earth, placing it in a class of planets dubbed "super-Earths." While its mass and composition are not yet determined, previous research suggests that planets the size of Kepler-452b have a better than even chance of being rocky.

So I'm not sure where you got 5 times the mass from.

In fact, if we assume composition similar to earth, a planet 1.6 times the size of earth would have 4.096 (1.6 cubed) times the mass of earth

Because gravitational pull falls with the square of the distance, we could divide 1.6 cubed times the mass of earth by the square of 1.6 gives us exactly 1.6 times earth's gravitational pull at the surface of the planet. Thus, assuming identical composition, surface gravity scales linearly with diameter. While it probably doesn't have absolutely identical composition to Earth, there is not yet any compelling reason at this time to speculate that its composition would be drastically different either. Certainly if its density were 25% heavier than that of earth, then the mass (and surface gravity) would be exactly as you described. According to the page, we do not know that information yet, however.

It certainly is in two-party consent jurisdictions.

Yes, but because gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, by being further from the center of mass in a larger planet, the net gravitational effect where the density of the planet is otherwise the same is scales linearly with the diameter. Assuming earth-like composition, the planet is 1.6G at its surface.

.... when the issue of openly recording people who are in a public place is still legally questionable?

... now they know how they would react. Mission accomplished, right?

Over an open flame?

I can see wheels being in a production environment, but fire?

Hmmm.... not sure what happened to my attempt at putting html into my commment. Let's try that again (and hit preview before submit this time...)

For chrissake look the phrase up in a dictionary.

Okay, that time it worked.

Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars

That only means that Uber's workers are more likely to fall under the classification of independent contractors instead of employees, it has no bearing on whether Uber is a taxi company or not. There is nothing inherent to being a taxi company that prohibits hiring independent contractors, who typically supply their own tools and equipment to perform a job. and any such prohibition on the part of the company, while certainly entirely permissible for a company to do, is a reflection of an employer-employee status being more likely to be applicable, and not indicative of whether it is or is not a taxi company.

Except that you are still using instrumentality to assist in resolving detail.... the phrase "naked eye" as applied to being able to see something means literally that... that using just the eye alone, without anything else, it can be seen.

For chrissake, look the phrase up in a dictionary.

Well, the phrase "naked eye" when applied to being able to view something corresponds to being able to see it *without* the aid of any instrumentation. The lens that is already within the eye is as naturally part of the eye as your skin is of your body, so the fact that lens plays a part in its optics is irrelevant.