Well...during peak hours, Uber X will go into surge pricing and cost far more than a taxi anyways.

Usually when there is surge pricing, I just use Uber to hail a normal taxi (in cities where this is possible). With a normal taxi, you pay a small fee to Uber, but otherwise the rate is straight-meter. Of course, that still won't help if literally every taxi is full, but it gets you better odds than simply standing on a single street corner and waving your hand.

It was more expensive than a taxi in NYC?

Every other city I have used it in, UberX was at a fair discount to a regular taxi...after all, why would you hop a ride in some random person's car (whom you will have to provide with directions because they don't know the city) if it costs more than an actual taxi service? The only thing more expensive was the black car (limo) service.

My local grocery store has a drop box for old cell phones and I have seen them in many other places (and at one point, I received some prepaid mailing envelopes for old phones). Supposedly they refurbish them and send them to Africa or give them to the elderly or abused women who may need to make use of the still-functional 911 features. Although, I question how useful this actually is...who is going to keep a 911-only phone charged and ready at all times? If you aren't actually using it for calls, and aren't used to having a mobile phone, that thing will just be dead in times of need. About the only situations where I can see it being useful is storing it powered-off and attached to a charger in a car or as a "secret" phone for a domestic abuse victim (can pull it out if your abuser takes away your real phone and monitors the land-line).

Yup, gets even worse in the city where there is an unwritten rule that the left turn cars get their shot to go when the light goes yellow/red. Obviously the cars that are actually pulled into the intersection should go or they will block traffic...but on intersections with no dedicated turn signal, the signal change is the only chance any car gets to turn during the cycle in busy traffic and thus (at least in Chicago) there is a tacit allowance for a couple of extra cars to complete the turn without fear of a ticket (usually 2-3 cars in each direction--the one in the intersection, the one part-way in, and the car behind them if everybody moves fast).

Of course, if people driving straight blow through the yellow and start of the red, then the turners have no time, and even those that were already in the intersection end up not being able to complete their turns until the other lights have already turned green.

Dedicated turn signals would alleviate the problem...but in pedestrian areas, they just produce new problems. Almost every time I go to lunch, I pass an intersection where there is a dedicated left turn and a lot of tourists--there is a Don't Walk sign, but often pedestrians start walking as soon as the traffic lights change (anticipating the Walk sign, not realizing there will be a turn signal)...leading to the turning cars not being able to clear the intersection and slamming on their horns. Then some of the pedestrians decide to stop in the intersection and give the cars the finger (some of them realize that they were wrong and hurry out of the way). Then the traffic lights change for the straight traffic, and oncoming cars start honking at the turning cars who are now blocking traffic...and the Walk sign turns on, so more pedestrians start walking and blocking the turning cars from being able to go...BAM! Gridlock.

That's not duress. That's just a contract.

It is literally saying, if you don't agree to this contract, you don't get the things that this contract says you get. It is like the guy at subway saying "If you don't give me $5, you can't have that sandwich". It's not duress until you say you don't really want the sandwich and the guy says "And if you don't want to buy the sandwich, I am going to beat your face in"

Duress is something that is not part of the contract that is being used to force you to sign the contract. The judge isn't going to uphold a contract that says "we won't kill you if you have signed this"...but they might uphold a contract that omits the death threat if you can't provide any proof of the threat. Some none-violent duress might be if your wife also worked for the company and they said "If you don't sign this, not only will you not get the job, but we are going to fire your wife"

One of my favorite bits of "Long Way Round" (documentary where Ewan McGregor and a friend ride motorcycles around the world) is when their cameraman fails to pass the motorcycle license test. The guy is already a pretty experienced rider and has a swiss license but they find out right before he leaves for the trip that he needs a UK license for some reason (reciprocity?).

He takes the first appointment that they can get...and fails for some tiny mistake. There is a wait-time after failing the test, so he actually has to start the trip late because of some tiny, tiny infraction (my recollection is that he didn't turn is head quite far enough to check if a corner was clear).

That would never happen in the US. I knew plenty of people in high school who hit the cones while parallel parking and still passed (probably explains all of the asshats I see in the city whose parallel parking technique involves damaging other people's expensive property). You should not be able to pass a driving test in which you made physical contact with something that is representative of another car.

In the state where I got my first license, you had to wait 1 week before testing again. You didn't have to actually practice or have any additional instruction...you just had to show up again.

A lot of kids would schedule their test at the nearby facility...and make an appointment for a week later at a testing facility that was further away but known for being easier (didn't have any one-way streets on the test...). If you fail, you just go take an easier test a week later and hope you pass.

Not sure what happened after the second time....but I don't think there were ever additional education requirements.

I don't think he disagrees with you that it is stupid.

But there are large masses of people who can't drive safely (or often, such as with texters, can...but won't). Who is going to tell those people they can't drive? What alternatives are you going to offer them? That's a one-way ticket to a lost reelection campaign. You are going to tell all of the old people that they need to renew their licenses so they won't vote for you. You are going to make it hard for all the young people who manage to "Get Out The Vote" so they won't vote for you. And you will fail all of the idiots...so while they didn't vote at all in the last election, they are going to show up just to vote against you.

It sucks...but how do we fix it? There are large swaths of people who can't even be convinced that staring at and typing on a phone instead of focusing on the road is a bad idea. If something as obvious as actually looking at the road is too much to ask for from some people, then driverless cars really are the only answer that is going to work in this country.

It's a pretty decent thing...although Spotify basically already has this. There are various "mood" based playlist options (like "Girls Night" "Lazy Chill Afternoon" "Indie Workout") as well as the ability to subscribe to other people's playlists (and there, you know who made it rather than "crafted by a songza expert"...e.g. you can listen to the Napster founder's playlists). Plus, you get the full power of spotify...so if you find a song on there that you like, you can directly add it to a playlist or go stream the whole album.

Songza forces you into the "radio" model where you can't actually pick songs...but it has a wider playlist variety. For instance, you can choose "Music for Working in an Office". From there you have a five choices like "Indie Music That's Not Too Weird" or "Easy, Breezy Summer Songs". Each of those has a few more choices underneath it--Under the Indie category, you get "Songs From Apple Commercials", "Mainstream Indie", and "Sunshine Indie Pop". This is a lot more than you get from Spotify. So you lose the direct song-level access, but you can really find playlists that fit what you want.

Its a good idea though. I've certainly tried to curate pandora/spotify radio playlists in a similar way, such as trying to create something that resembles a "Happy Summer" station rather than a "Sounds like XYZ Band" station. My guess is that Google will try to integrate it into their own Spotify competitor (Play Music). Works for them in two ways: enhances features for the paid service and attracts free songza users to the paid service (Want direct track control? Want to hear this whole album? Try Google Play Music free for 30 days)

Yup. We tried to solve a "people are idiots and do stupid things" problem and in doing so, just revealed that a different group of people are also idiots who do stupid things.

The basic idea behind non-countdown lights works pretty well if people actually follow it. Figure out how long it takes someone to walk across the street. Lets say it takes 30 seconds. Then, when the light goes green, you display the walk sign until 30 seconds before the light changes at which point you switch to a blinking don't walk. Blinking "Don't Walk" already means "You may finish crossing, but do not enter the intersection if you have not started".

The problem is that people don't listen. The traffic engineer has told them "You probably don't have enough time now" but they still enter the intersection. So now we give them a countdown hoping they will agree with the traffic engineer and decide they don't have enough time...Sure, if the countdown says "1" then they won't cross, but if it says "10", they are going to run into the intersection thinking they have enough time. Combine those people running into the intersection late with the drivers who see they only have 10 seconds left to make a turn through the light...and you are going to get accidents.

I believe it is common for state universities to have police that are an actual governmental body (rather than a private security force, which may still consist of state-certified officers who have full police powers).

Also, at least at my school, the majority of university police officers where off duty or retired cops (probably the easiest way to be a state-certified officer...already be one). So instead of working OT for the force (when the commander allows it), they had a stable overtime gig for the university.

Maybe for rural schools or colleges set in nice neighborhoods...but there are a lot of major universities located in areas that would not be very nice but for the presence of the school.

Look at schools like Columbia, UPenn, UChicago...They all border pretty rough neighborhoods. If the school wasn't there, the area where it sits would be a rough neighborhood too.

The private police forces keep a safety bubble for students. The local PD has many other things to worry about, while the university police (many of whom are just off-duty cops) can be 100% tasked with patrolling and maintaining student and neighborhood safety.

It also means that they aren't required to behave exactly the same way as cops are which can be of great benefit for a University that wants to take care of their students without policing them heavily. They can enforce non-law university rules, and they can choose not to enforce other actual laws as strictly as they might if they were on duty regular cops. For instance, I know that at my college, the university police were not big on busting people for underage drinking (obviously, there are other schools where this is the only thing they do...). They would still show up and bust rowdy parties when the neighbors complain, but they wouldn't pull out the breathalyzer and start checking IDs. Similarly, they might not enforce park closing times on a bunch of college kids playing frisbee at midnight, but they would still boot out non-students. Basically, the school pays them to keep kids safe, not to lock them down or hamper their fun--since they aren't the real police, they have a lot more leeway to profile people (e.g. kick you out of the park if nobody in your group can produce a student ID).

To be fair, the school in question here is not the kind where student athletes likely have a large skill gap compared to the other students. It is a glorified step up form a community college.

Unlike the under-qualified athletes who get scholarships to schools with strong academics, this is a school where they can probably keep up just fine. I don't mean to sound disparaging (and since I live nearby, I have met good people who went there), but it is not a good school.

I mean, look at their wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_University_(Illinois). When was the last time you saw a university wikipedia page that didn't once mention Academics? Notable Alumni? Literally the only meaningful section is about sports.

I don't think Title IX applies here.

Last time I checked, video games were not a gendered sport...Since it isn't going to be a "Mens Only" team, availability will be considered equal. It may attract more men (although the only person I see posting about LoL on my facebook is a woman--the male MOBA players all seem to prefer DOTA2), but if it is being offered and competed in a coed league, then it is Title IX neutral.

Doubtful.

No lawyer is going to take that case on contingency, and even if they did...there would be no seven-figure payday. Despite what you may think, damages are based on actual harm and don't explode just because a megacorp is involved.

Even if it weren't some ambiguous "it used to say Creative Commons but now someone is making a copyright claim" situation, the maximum damages figure is very small. You would get the actual damages, which certainly aren't going to be more than 4 figures for a single website image unless you are a well-established or famous photographer doing specific work for hire. Then you would get some statutory damages--Unknowing infringement (such as after a change in licensing from CC) is limited to something like $200...willfull infringement can go higher, but only if you registered the images with the copyright office in a timely manner (which almost nobody does, especially not for images they post online with a CC attribution).

This: is a pretty giant award as far as infringement goes. Notice that they only got $21k for 10 images, and that was with their own dedicated team of lawyers. For the 2 with registrations, they got a total of 300k, which is the maximum for willful infringement, but look at just how willful that infringement was: The infringers were complete dicks about it. They continued using the images for *years* after being told they were infringing, they lied and used fake names, and when it came time to go to trial, they were not forthcoming in discovery. Those are the kinds of actions that piss off a judge and get you maximum statutory damages.