Heh, "distress" = "distros". Thank you autocorrect.

As of less than a year ago TRIM was still not enabled by default in mainstream Linux distress... has that changed?

And even if it has, clearly that means it's not as big a deal as this article claims...

It's not about the *customer* authenticating anything, it's about the driver having a vested interest in not committing a crime. In general people who have steady employment and are licensed at a trade, put down deposits, whatever (yes, medallions are just an extreme example), are not the ones committing violent crimes against others while they work. I'd imagine even the serial-killer-taxi-drivers out there will do their serial-killing on their own time, since they still gotta put food on the table.

No, that's completely untrue. In fact it says in plain English that UberX is not only covered, but is PRIMARY (i.e. comes before the personal insurance). The only limitation to it is that doesn't cover accidents the driver gets into when they do not have a scheduled fare. And since the OP was talking about fares being injured, that makes that part irrelevant.

"If you’re taking a ride requested through uberX, some transportation providers are rideshare drivers providing transportation with their personal vehicles. Rideshare providers carry personal insurance policies. However, there’s a commercial insurance policy for ridesharing with $1 million of coverage per incident. This policy covers drivers’ liability from the time a driver accepts your trip request through the app until the completion of your trip. This policy is expressly primary to the driver’s personal auto policy."

Many rules were absolutely necessary. Today, some are, some aren't. Probably needs an overhaul, but that doesn't mean some things aren't working well...

Do you ever wonder why with this completely paranoid culture we have today why no one ever really worries about getting into a random car driven by a complete stranger in a dark alley in a city in a major US city? Well, it's because the medallion that driver carries is worth several hundred thousand dollars in most cases. These guys (or their employers) are in it for the money, and there is a lot of it - which is part of the implicit guarantee to follow the rules...

Because if you hire a negligent cab driver with no personal assets and no insurance who kills or maims a passenger insurance you or your family is basically screwed.

Why should it be any different from any other profession/company (doctor, airline, etc) where you put your life in someone else's hands?

In the US, at least, Uber has a commercial rideshare insurance policy that is primary and covers $1M per incident.

https://support.uber.com/hc/en...

Likely true in any other country that has similar liability regulations for taxis and rideshares. So, you are basically totally incorrect.

And SF public transportation sucks ass. Your point?

Depends on who you are and where you are going. As they say, time is money. If saving 30 minutes on a bus is worth $50 in productivity you are in fact saving money.

And Jack left town...

Sucks, but that's life in rural/unincorporated US. In many municipalities the cable franchise contract *requires* that the cable co pay to run cable to homes within their area, but if you are out of that area, good luck. Still, according to NCTA 93% of US households have access to cable, which IMO still qualifies as "vast majority".

Though this really does support the point that *someone* is going to have to spend the money to run or upgrade that rural last mile just as they will to upgrade the other 93% from the current 3-30Mbps broadband to 100-1Gbps broadband.

And when they spend that money they will want to own those wires. So it's not going to help competition that much unless the consumer or the government was the one willing to spend that money. There are some (very few though - they are increasingly selling out to Comcast/Verizon after being unable to break even due to scale) cities that are offering they own FTTP (fiber to the premises), but they require the homeowner/business to pay for the fiber link to the loop, which can cost a few grand.

Yes, it clearly was actually...

No, the vast majority has two: cable (DOCSIS) and telco (DSL). Though currently in all but a few lucky areas with FIOS, etc, the telcos (like AT&T) are way behind cable. The point of AT&T's upgrade is to finally ditch the ancient copper lines and leapfrog cable.

Again, no. The telcos have a monopoly because copper was installed to homes about 100 years ago via the only phone company in existence, the original AT&T. Their markets were "divided" by the antitrust breakup of AT&T, not a bunch of telcos deciding where to offer service.

Cable has a bit different history, but also had ZERO to do with "ISPs" since the Internet didn't *exist* when cable infrastructure was built into most cities. And in this case the cities are the ones who decided which cable company would get the franchise. Not to mention back then there were hundreds of smaller cable companies - it was almost the opposite of the telco evolution, probably in fact *becuase* of backlash to the AT&T monopoly. And of course it's the US government's fault as much as anyone, now, that those baby Bell telcos were allowed to recombine back into AT&T and Verizon and the cable companies to consolidate into the 5-6 that dominate the market.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the shitty policies and practices of cable and telco companies as much as anyone, but I'm also a realist. If anyone else wants to compete at this point they will either need to spend massive amounts of money to build the infrastructure (we can only hope Google can pull it off), or come up with some completely new technology/infrastructure (metro wifi, LTE+, etc) that is cheaper to deploy.

Yeah, time to give it up. His "arguments" have shifted so much he's basically into trolling territory. Once you pointed out the actual name of the SOX legislation as an indication of intent it was pretty much over for him, so he descended into semantics and enough underweight red herrings to get some poor fisherman some major Federal prison time...

What does this have to do with legal binding? We were talking understanding intent, and it absolutely goes towards intent. And the "Megan's Law" example is moronic, that's just an informal name, the actual law is "The Sexual Offender Act of 1994". And yes, it applies to sexual offenders. Fucking DUH.

Your arguments were looking weaker and weaker so you just changed your tack. But unfortunately now it's just become absurd.

Did you read the original comment this thread is based on?

I think you are in the weeds here. The rest of us actually started it based on that comment. Your post just goes... well who even knows where, sorry...

If you learned a bit more about the English Common Law system (which US law is based on), you'd understand the problem.