The original design was not faulty - it worked fine for years, until people's habits changed to carrying so much junk on their keychains. It would be the same as if people, instead of just hanging a pair of fuzzy dice from their interior rear-view mirror started hanging their purse or pack-sack from it and complaining that it broke off after a bump.

We have way too many common-sense fails nowadays, such as "This plastic bag is not a toy" and "Objects in mirror are closer than they seem" and "6PCS Precision screwdriver set not to be inserted into penis" and "Do not eat Ipod shuffle" (found on apple's website) and "Do not use for personal hygiene" (on Scrubbing Bubbles Fresh Brush) and many many more.

That would presume that every writer actually read Tolkien - a very dubious assumption, since (a) there were plenty of writers who wrote fantasy before Tolkien wrote LotR, and (b) that many modern writers would even bother reading it. I bought the series on sale because of the hype, and after 50 pages put it down because it sucks pretty much on the same level as C. S. Lewis.

Have I seen the movie? I walked into a relative's basement and after a minute I asked "What the heck is this anyway?" "Lord of the Rings." "No wonder it's so f-ed up. Bye!"

Tolkien was a poor second-rate wannabe of HG Wells and Jules Verne, or if you want to go back a few centuries, Johnathan Swift.

A pity that Tolkien didn't invent any of those - then his estate could sue the modern fantasy genre into non-existence, and nothing of value would be lost except Anne McCaffrey's works. :-)

You got it! And I agree, they should have kept her around, rather than Kirk doing a parody of the swaggering captain of yore.

Scotty wasn't just a red shirt - he was THE red shirt. The one that everyone who failed to live up to his level got offed / eaten alive / transporter accident / phasered one time too many / crushed by a rock ... and in the unreleased episodes, killed themselves when they thought their phaser was a blow drier, stepped into to turbo lift without checking to see if it was there, didn't realize that not all planets had earth-normal atmosphere, froze to death when they forgot the difference between 20C and 20K, at the food in the cafeteria ... (that will get you every time, no matter where you are in the universe).

Just because most of the fans of lord of the rings are (claimed to be) scientists (no actual study was done) does not mean that most scientists are fans of lord of the rings.

And honestly, lord of the rings stinks as a piece of literature. Give me a good sci-fi (or even not-so-good) any day.

Oh really? Then explain why people are using Uber at all instead of the licensed, regulated cab companies that are omnipresent at all Uber-served locations? Saying something is a "complete lie" doesn't make it so, you know. The obviousness of reality proves you're incorrect.

Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior. So, do you buy products and services from greedy, shady douchebags yourself? Or do you exercise your own free will and avoid buying from companies that exploit sweatshop workers, cut environmental corners, and screw their employees? I do, and it works out rather nicely. If you do as well then you've just invalidated your premise that government is required to keep the greedy, shady douchebags in check. If you don't, you're a hypocrite. Or, perhaps there's a third case where you're forced to buy goods/services from greedy, shady douchebags but only because they're protected by a government-sanctioned (officially or otherwise) monopoly.

Companies that consistently act in a fashion counter to what their customers want don't usually survive long. In fact, they typically only survive if -- drum roll please -- government regulation or subsidies allow them to do so, usually in the form of a protected monopoly/oligopoly or by excessive regulatory action presenting a nigh-insurmountable barrier to entry.

But go on thinking government is the solution to all that ails you. Knock yourself right out on that one.

So? It's not like someone put a gun to their head and said "you will drive for Uber or else!"

For crying out loud folks...grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want the risk, don't take the job.

I'm glad they have licenses, certified mechanics, etc., but you miss the point. I don't have a choice in the matter. All these things are mandated and regulated. However, if I did have a choice, I would choose of my own free will to fly the licensed, certified airline. Most other people would probably choose the same way, and the unlicensed, uncertified airline would wither and die for lack of business...all without the almighty hand of government forcing the populace to think and act a certain way.

Then nothing should stop you from doing so. If you can attract paying customers to your business and you prosper at it, you're filling a market need that wasn't being addressed to begin with. Your customers are happy, you're happy, and nobody is harmed by these free choices. If you give bad customer service, endanger your passengers beyond their willingness to accept risk, or run your business poorly, your endeavor will fail as it should based strictly on the merits of your idea and enterprise. Government should not be in the business of determining who can or cannot come up with a useful service. Period. Government is too corruptible, too faceless, and far, far too powerful to trust with something like this.

I'm not asking you to pay for any of my expenses if I get into an accident. If the government is forcing you to do so, however, your issue should (again) be with the idiotic government regulations that compel you to do such things, not with me for exercising my free will.

The "fumes" crap is just that -- crap. It's a non sequitur to the argument at hand, namely whether the government has any right to shut down a useful service that's in demand by a willing population.

Nor did I say we should. A sovereign anarchy would mean I can do whatever I want regardless of how it might affect anyone and everyone. Quite the contrary, I propose the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do when it only affects myself. For example, if I want to sit in my house and get blind stinking drunk, that's my business and the government has no right to stop me. If, however, I choose to get drunk and drive, then it affects others, so that should rightly be a crime. See? It's pretty simple. You get to do what you think is best for you, I get to do what I think is best for me, and so long as neither of us tread on the other, why should either of us care what the other did or does?

Your problem is you think what's best for you ought to be best for everyone else. The height of arrogance. Let everyone make their own choices, even if they're the wrong ones. In the end, the "right" choices will eventually win the day and society will progress.

Do you really believe that they're going to make a statue of the Kardashian Clan?

They thought is was a reference to the game Quake 4.0, which was released in 2005. You know, recycling old news. Coming up next - Bennett Haselton pontificating on what this apparent coincidence means for the upcoming release of Quake 5, which will happen when a story about a 5.0 earthquake makes it to the front page.

The portion you quoted was sarcasm, my friend. Go back and read it again and you'll see.

My argument is simple: such laws are idiotic and serve only to create barriers to entry and depress competition and innovation. If I pick up a friend and drive him to the airport and he gives me gas (excuse me, petrol) money, do I have to have a license and carry commercial insurance? Of course not. That'd be ludicrous. And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations. Baloney. Hogwash. Balderdash.

Uber wouldn't exist if the in situ transportation companies were fulfilling their function as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Uber is filling that vacuum. Cab companies are crying foul because they don't want their business model challenged. It has nothing to do with their sudden love of human life. You say this is all about profit and you're right, but it's about their profit, not Uber's.

And let's not forget, nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to ride with Uber instead of an insured, regulated cab. People have a (gasp) CHOICE. My God, we can't have that, can we? Government MUST step in and tell these poor besotted idiots how they must decided because they're clearly too stupid to do it for themselves! Here comes government to save the day!

You amply illustrate the thinking of the nanny state. Yeah, people are just too fucking stupid to make their own decisions. Why not let the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing government tell you what's best for you.

You talk about "minimum level of service acceptable" as if it were an absolute. Why don't you let people decide on what they'll accept instead of you -- or, by proxy, your totalitarian vision of government -- decide for them? What's acceptable to me may not be acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be happier paying less for it. It's my skin I'm risking, not yours. You have no business telling me I can't choose to do something because you think you know better than me what's good for me. Neither does government.