1st That call wouldn't be anonymous.
2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.

Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.

But other countries pay for their oil, too. The oil money won't be instantly down to zero. Yes, they would have to cut back, but people won't revolt that quickly if they build less skyscrapers.

Here comes into play what the other commenter replied: The US is a net energy exporter, Saudi Arabia doesn't have to supply ALL the oil needed there. Gas prices still would go up a lot, but gas stations wouldn't run dry.

Which would actually be a wise reaction compared to the knee-jerk reactions Joe Sixpack would come along with.

Maybe. But "energy" in general won't help you if you need to run combustion engines.

Being pissed off when you find out that some (supposedly friendly!) foreign agency is spying on you is not hipocrisy. It's a perfect normal reaction.

On the other hand, it's hipocrisy not to relize that exactly is their job.

or how would you think America would react if the BND started wiretapping Obamas calls? Not amused. I'd guess.

How much are you willing to pay for gas?

I bet the middle east could survice longer on the money they already have that the US could without oil from there.

You don't have to go as far as to make that a matter of trust.

If ANY country's 3-letter-agencies are looking out for you, you don't want to be in any country that has a visa waiver program with the first.

So much for the question if Germany should offer refugee status. He would be stupid to request it here.

Sortof.

I had a chance to actually use uber, so excuse me and please correct me if I get this wrong, but I was under the impression that the uber fare is based on the distance between start and destination as determined by a routing software and not on the detours the driver decides to take?

So how could the driver fleece the passenger here?

Agreed. But would those people spend money on a taxi?

In theory I agree with your first paragraph. But taxi drivers worldwide made a sport out of fleecing tourists.

And for the second statement: I understood that when you order a uber car using the app, you give your destination and the fare is calculated based on the optimum* route. And that fare is fixed no matter how often he is driving you around the same circle. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Never had a chance to actually try uber

*or at least the one any other routing service would suggest you, too

But it seems that these are - despite their price - create the most profit, or else taxi companies wouldn't buy them.

Say, for example, I was a young guy who wants to start a one-man taxi business in New York. For some reason my bank ok'ed that. How much would I have to invest for the licence alone? Have I have to pay that as a lump sum so that I need to bill it as an actual, deductible investment (and costs me additional intrest as I probably need my bank to back it with a credit) or is it some monthly amount that hast to come from the monthly earnings?

Which in itself isn't evil or anything. They pass along most of the fare to the driver in return, too. So this could be a win-win situation.

I don't think you're supposed to be a uber driver for years. But it may be a an option to use your existing car to pay for the next credit installment on the very same car while you're between jobs for a few months. The actual new thing compared to taxi is that there is hardly a need to any up front investments as existing car and phone can be used.

So that's exactly the point: Current rules and regulations are tailored to support those big taxi companies in raking in "$300,000/yr or more" and it's neither the drivers nor the passengers who are protected by those regulations. It's those companies that are in fear of competition.

On the other hand the Uber model guarantees that both parties are equipped with a device that works as GPS using recent (online) maps. If the driver "gets lots2 or "decides to show the passenger the scenic route" - he can't charge the passenger for that. So that type of scam is indeed left to professionals.