Assuming something that almost certainly isn't true can never be a good strategy, can it? Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people try to break the airport security rules every day, mostly inadvertently; it just happened that this guy got through. None of those people are actual terrorists (some may be, but they have the day off), so shooting them in the head if they make a sudden move or don't immediately respond to orders barked at them might be overkill.

That's a commonly used phrase that is also a terrible strategy, well evidenced by our overreaction to the very minor threat of terrorism.

If you really were to assume everyone who violated security rules was a terrorist the sniper option is probably your best bet. There is almost no chance that they would have a dead man switch armed while simply strolling through the terminal, it's best just to silently take out anyone who walks the wrong way past a secure door or tries to smuggle more than 3 oz of liquid through the x-ray machine.

That would be a pretty wacky assumption that would make you do a lot of dangerous things. It would be reasonable to take precautions on the very unlikely chance that the guy was a terrorist, but to assume or presume it would be crazy. (Although that's what people in law enforcement often do.)

I think it highly unlikely that the right people will be blamed because they are all working from incorrect assumptions and faulty math.

There are many more options and solutions (and shades of gray) than the four you listed, including "the man is a terrorist, but they don't figure out he is a terrorist." Or perhaps they assume he is a terrorist and do everything they can for the safety of the terminal without actually shutting the entire thing down and costing millions of dollars of waste. ...

Your calculus also leaves the misimpression that all scenarios are equally likely, which they are not.The response to any situation shouldn't be to assume the worst possible outcome, it should be to weigh the chances of that worst thing vs. the disruption (and cost).

If you were working in security the option you chose is the right one for you - in a flawed system you would make the selfish choice to save your job, even when it is a terrible choice for everyone else.

It was the iPad guy's fault for going the wrong way in a secure area, it is not his fault that the terminal was shutdown. That is all on the overblown security response and the people who happily tolerate it, like yourself.

How will a driverless car handle roads that are wet or icy (perhaps before a loss of traction occurs)?

Better than human drivers.

There's no benefit to the lottery, it was just a half way decent system that worked when they had limited technology (and not much ingenuity). People should pay the fair cost of their ride, but part of that cost is from the driver waiting in the queue or having to drive back to the airport empty. This cost should be borne fairly across all drivers.

That's bad, but the solution is not trivial.

Considerate people may feel this way, but they shouldn't. Short term trips are a necessary part of the system; it may not be good for the one driver who takes you (on that day), but it is better for every other driver behind him in the queue, so it is better for everyone.

We're not quite there yet, actually. The problem is that we're in a transition period where traditional taxi companies need to coexist with services like Uber and the traditional companies need to serve people who aren't using smart phones. So there needs to be at least some temporary solution to keep things fair. E.g. an airport could have a short haul queue and a long haul queue. Or they could have the passengers line up at a kiosk where they are matched up with the best driver.

Absolutely. That was meant to be a rhetorical question. The point being that we could still give them a positive EV without the lottery effect which, IMO, makes everyone less happy.

Your EV increases, but it decreases for all the other drivers. Given the hassle to the drivers and passengers from the rejection process this is actually an overall negative. Therefore there has to be some system in place to correct this; I don't see how letting drivers cherry-pick would work well in any market.

The system is broken and disruptive companies like Uber will force some sort of correction. The taxi companies can work with us (the customers) or let someone else come up with a better solution which puts them out of business.

You have some unique views about the job description and special duties of cab drivers that seem to put you at odds with the rest of the world. Perhaps this view is shared by most Londoners in which case companies like Uber will never be successful there. However, I expect that in twenty years when Londoners travel to other cities they will be pleasantly surprised by the cheap and convenient transportation options that are available compared to their own which have remained expensive and inefficient.

I suggest you review the thread and/or have someone explain the basics of logic to you. If I ask you why a dog is required to be on a leash outdoors, but not a cat and you say that it's because a dog has four legs, then I am not going out on a limb by suggesting that you think a cat does not have four legs.

Why are taxi drivers going to the airport and waiting an hour if it is not profitable for them to do so? That there is such a glut of taxis at the airport implies that the price should actually be much lower as that will create more demand (lessen the queue) and reduce the incentive for drivers to go to the airport to pick up a fare. Balancing out the drop-offs and pickups at the airport so that there is quick turnaround should make everyone happier.

Similarly the requirement that taxis pick up every fare is primarily a benefit to the taxi drivers themselves. It may suck if you get the bad luck to get a short ride, but it reduces the queue for everyone else and evens out in the long run. All drivers waiting for the long trips would be bad for everyone.

The tragedy of the commons doesn't happen if people and businesses are forced to pay for the external costs of their activities/commerce.

Except you don't answer the questions, so I'm forced to figure out the answer from your evasive responses. Give a full answer that actually addresses the inconsistency I point out in your stated philosophy and I wouldn't have to take shortcuts.

WHY are taxi/Uber drivers special? You can't or won't address that properly. If you say that it is because of X (e.g. "it's the law" or "it's their duty") then that means that X doesn't apply to the OTHER cases (e.g. pizza delivery boys et al.) This is just simple logic.

The philosophy you have written down in this thread is inconsistent and hypocritical. You are correct that I have no idea what you really think, but I do know what you have actually committed to paper. You are certainly under no obligation to address those problems with what you have written, to point out the nuance in your thinking that we have overlooked, but don't begrudge me the right to point out those issues.

You say X should be banned because Z. I say that Y is also Z. It's not a great leap for me to assume that you think Y should also be banned. If you want to point out that you really meant that X is Z' (a subtle subset of Z that does not apply to Y) then go ahead or just leave your inconsistent philosophy out there. Up to you.

Really? Your ideal world is a nanny state that prevents anyone from doing any activity the state (i.e. you) decides is not in their long term best interest. It requires laws for people to be considerate and civil to their neighbors, customers and passersby. I like my world much better, thank you.

You have a law in London that says "Taxi drivers must take responsibility for the old and disabled. Everybody else, just ignore them?" I think your law is terrible and the time of blindly following stupid laws is long past.

The questions are simple, not childlike, and are necessary to point out that your philosophy is inconsistent and impossible. Where you get this romantic idea that taxi drivers are special guardians of society is beyond me, perhaps that's part of London cab lore, but it applies nowhere else in the world. In my bleak world view, taxi drivers, pizza delivery boys, fedex delivery men ALL drive safely and take on a shared responsibility for the weaker members of society just like everyone else.

It's hypocritical if you don't call for a ban on every activity that is known to be "bad" for society, that you only want to ban things you personally find "bad."

That is not a fair example as that is something you wanted to give up anyway. Your philosophy would ban every recreational drug (including alcohol), non-educational TV, movies, video games and entertainment. It would ban pornography, cosmetic surgery, probably cosmetics themselves, on and on down the line. That would make you consistent and not a hypocrite.

That is absolutely not a fact. Smoking has long term negative health consequences, but it is for the individual to decide if the good they get out of smoking - the pleasure, stress relief, camaraderie, et al. outweigh those long term risks. Your philosophy does not account for the benefits from "bad" habits or activities. I smoke about twice a year and the value I get from those experiences is enormous vs. the added health risk I'm subjecting myself to. Your philosophy would prevent me from making that individual choice, simply because YOU have an addictive personality (at least to cigarettes) and I don't.

It's good for society, in general, certainly not for everyone. Discouragement is fine, within limits, as shutdown (and I) have discussed, but you are talking about absolutes. Like no smoking in "public" spaces, for example.

There is almost no doubt that cannabis has negative health effects and many short term costs, therefore by your philosophy it should be banned. If you open the door to weighing the good an individual gets vs. the long term risk (and external costs) in this case you have to allow it in all cases (see "hypocrite" above).

Absolutely. Those who enjoy the benefits of a "bad" habit should pay for ALL external costs.

You're right on that. Banning is only equivalent as a deterrent, but it doesn't have the extra benefit of mitigating the external costs that would otherwise be passed on to society. I prefer the taxing approach, but will settle for the "ban" where people have philosophical issues with new taxes. There is nothing wrong with government influencing behavior as long as they do it openly and with the right long term goals in mind - one of many examples is putting disgusting photos on cigarette packages.

We don't deny them treatment even IF they can't cover their fair share of the bill, which is why seat belt laws are a practical necessity. I'm okay with people making (what I believe are) poor choices, but I generally don't want to pay for it.

Banning large soda sizes is basically equivalent to a tax. There is no suggestion for a law that says someone can't buy two 32oz sodas if they really want them, but it will almost certainly be more than the current price of 64oz. The ban is a simple psychological trick merely to counter the psychological trick vendors make by offering you a huge discount on the much larger size you don't need and often don't even want. The same could be done for cigarettes or marijuana, e.g. requiring stores to sell individual packs and not offering bulk discounts.