Why when you are not a taxi but a person providing a service out of your own personal transportation?

Just because you want to shoehorn all new services into the same regulation as old ones doesn't mean its justified.

Why need? Because its required for some other older services so you just assume the regulation makes sense here too because you want them to be the same in every way and you can't admit that an existing restriction may not make sense to continue in a new paradigm?

I see no reason why a person deciding to use his personal car occasionally to make some extra cash should require commercial plates. Hell, I could see a stronger case for requiring pizza delivery drivers to have commercial plates, and nobody requires that.

Those are services, if you can't tell the difference between making laws to threaten people with punishment if they don't do what you want and providing a service to people to help those who want it....then i don't know what more I can explain that would be helpful.

Except that isn't the case, individuals are insuring their own cars, and this new offering from the insurance companies is between them and the insurance companies, it has nothing to do with Uber specifically.

In fact, if anything what I don't see is any need for a new law. Existing law clearly already covers it by requiring insurance, and insurance company policies not covering that usage....so where is a law needed where we already have one and already have people working to comply with the ones we have?

I don't have one, I have a competitors product the RSA key, which has no USB port at all, you type in the numbers it gives you. Little LCD screen and a buttion. I don't keep mine on any chain, I carry it seperately from anything else.

However, I have to say, for what it is, I have been quite impressed with its durability, in fact, I would say it sets a standard that few devices I have encountered have met, but most all really should....has it ever been through the wash?

My wife has unceremoniously washed, and dried (not hanging dry, in the electric dryer) my RSA key no less than 3 times. Each time it has stopped working properly for a few hours, occasionally displaying gibberish, but it has always started working ust fine again, and usually the visible water drops under the screen go away within a few days.

After the first couple of times I paniced, I have since decided this is in fact the standard of quality we should expect from more devices.

> And yes, I have heard of that Google thing, but one of the prime tenets of good communication is to not make your audience go elsewhere for fundamental information.

No, I don't think you quite got it there.

However the fundamental tennent of answering a question is actually answering it. If all you have to say is "I know, but I am not going to tell you", you haven't actually communicated anything because knowing that you know is, in every way, equivalent to not knowing at all.

Its not communication at all, its just noise like pans falling down stairs, noise without signal.

So basically a new situation arose specifically around insurance and insurance companies, seeing this new gap are already moving to fill it? So what you are saying is, this problem is self correcting? Nice. Good to hear.

Except for the fact that they were already addicts before they became customers, and that the alternative was that they do what exactly? Tell them to go elsewhere to someone who wouldn't even do that much?

The only evil here is the people who make laws out of ignorance. Idiots who think drug laws work are the true evil and the ones responsible for the entire mess. Its sad that we have to allow prohibitionists to share the clean air and sunshine that the good people of the world enjoy.

They are the ONLY ones to blame here, their policies created exactly the situation they did before. They are the ones who filled our burn units with meth cooks; how many houses went up in flames before prohibitionist scum came along and gave them financial incentive to burn?

Well actually its because such benefits are assumed rather than always in existance. The real problem comes when this is assumed of policies, like the drug laws, which don't even achieve a small portion of their goals (unless you assume those goals are to create middle class jobs in prison and probation systems, in which case, it succeeds like gangbusters)

In fact, its quite possible for these programs to not have any benefits at all.

However a murderer has actually harmed someone in a way that denies him his rights. Hardly a realistic comparison. I would compare it more, to having sex with a man behind closed doors. Seems more appropriate of a comparison to me given the lack of a victim in the simple ownership or posession of an object or substance.

In fact, I would even say, his right to own or put what he wants in his body is likely on the level of his religion.

Actually Crock is making his point for him. Do you know what the really fucking saddest thing about Crock is? Seriously.... do you know?

"Crock" would be safer than most other opiates if it was pharmaceutical grade, because it causes LESS REPIRATORY DISTRESS.

Yes, "Crock" the nasty limb destroying hell on earth drug is itself.... the perfect example of why making drugs illegal doesn't work and causes more problems. Add to this that drug prohibition has failed to change addiction rates and you have....the same rate....consuming less safe drugs..... gee....sounds like a recipe for safety to me!

Yes lets keep creating these situations.

Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".

I say the public has a public interest in regulating the government and making it justify its interests whenever and wherever possible and restricting those interests as strictly as possible.

> But the problem is that picking a good president is like putting a good head on a rotting fish. It's not going to do the job by itself.

This. We would do better to pick every single one of their positions by lot

I've been a mathematics teacher for nine years. And with the utmost sincerity, let me say this: Shut the fuck up.

Take your baseless opinions regarding educational matters and keep them to yourself. Microsoft has had as much success running schools as they had selling MP3 players. Note taking has been proven time-and-time again to be a very effective and powerful mnemonic device for learning. Studies have also shown that note taking with a pen/pencil and paper is more effective than note taking with a laptop. Furthermore, I can ask my students to have a notebook and pencil the first day of class, and for those who forgot or cannot afford it, I have plenty of spares to give them. I cannot expect the same out of a laptop or other digital device. Until you have research clearly demonstrating that any digital device is superior for learning development and comprehension, stay out of my classroom.

So I'm still confused here, does fed overrule state or state overrule fed? Or is it just "both, as needed" per usual?

If California can legalize pot yet the law still supports the feds arresting anyone possessing it, seems to me that means the FCC can force states to allow ISPs to operate irregardless of the states wishes.

If the state does have power to tell the FCC to go away, why can't California do the same exact thing under the same exact laws to the DEA?