Cabbies no doubt occasionally hurt people too -- the question is whether or not you're substantially more likely to get hurt taking an Uber than driving yourself. I imagine Uber is safer -- any Uber driver likely knows the roads and how to drive on them in whatever urban hell you're in better than you do.

They probably let Dick Cheney drive, so you don't even need a heartbeat. (He's also prone to shoot people in the face, too.)

The real question is: does anything go badly wrong if things like Uber and Lyft are *not* regulated?

Turns out: not really. There isn't a plague of Uber drivers hauling passengers off to the boonies and robbing them. In my experience they're a lot friendlier and saner than the local cabbies.

Distorted picture? Seriously? Republicans fought a major legislative war to ... literally .... take food out of the mouths of hungry children. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, feeding children in poverty through no fault of their own, Republicans wanted to slash it by $40 billion, and did slash it $9 billion. I could go on and on about the appalling impact of other Republican policies, but that right there, literally fighting to take food out of the mouths of hungry children, is so wildly egregious to establish the Republican model of compassion. Taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. Taking fucking food out of the mouths of hungry children. At that point, virtually the only way to "paint a distorted picture" would be drag in Nazis or something.

I've seen the figures, and they don't support your claim.

Republican tax deductible giving is indeed higher, but you and I both know that tax deductible doesn't equal charity. Charity is giving to benefit other people, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, treating the sick, donating to research to cure diseases for the benefit all mankind, and so on.

A group of people buying themselves a clubhouse is tax deductible if you call the building a "church", hiring people to run that clubhouse and preform services for themselves is tax deductible if you call those services "religious services". But you and I both know that any money that goes towards buildings or goods or services for oneself is not charity. If someone gives $300 to their church, and only 3% of the church budget goes to feeding the homeless, then that's really only $9 given to charity and (tax deductible but non-charitable) $291 dollars buying a building and services for oneself.

The money given to buy themselves a church and buy themselves religious services cuts into disposable income, it cuts into the money Republicans give to charity.

Republicans have higher tax-deductible giving, but lower charitable giving.

-

How perceptive of you, picking up on the subtle persecution.
Yep, because 6 and a half days a week the Slashdot community is wall-to-wall Odin worshipers.

-

Magma.
Molten ice.

-

... handles of League of Legends players in the LCS (highest-profile US and Europe tournaments):

(Spaces added to evade filter)

Crumbzz
Goldenglue
Imaqtpie (best name ever)
Kiwikid
Cruzer the bruzer
Dyrus
TheOddOne
Reginald
Bjergsen
Wild Turtle
Xpecial
Balls
Meteos
Hai
Sneaky
LemonNation
Nien tonsoh
Dexter
Link

Doublelift

Aphromoo

They don't seem too overbearing to me...

Hypothetically, if you screwed a camera lens onto an iphone, the lens cylinder would project beyond the rectangular prism that is the iphone. And if you dropped that iphone, and it landed on the lens, it would probably stress that lens mount quite a bit.

Are these the sort of moron roundabouts that have traffic lights too, combining the worst features of both, or are they normal ones with no red lights?

We've got the red-light moron-roundabouts in DC, and they are a pain in the ass. (They also have lanes that merge and split unpredictably, so people get confused about what lane goes where. And, since people are jockeying for position in traffic, they tend to not see bikes...)

In that case, the language should limit the waiver of moral rights to such cases. Something along the lines of "The Author grants NPG permission to publish corrections to or retractions of the Work". See, no broad waver of moral rights necessary.

As someone who recently switched from Olympus to Nikon: every damn thing goes backwards. The focus rings go backwards, the zoom ring goes backwards, and the bayonets go backwards.

The optics are good and the images are nice, of course. But I wonder who decided stuff should go backwards at Nikon just for the sake of being different.

I think the patent is for lens mount that decouples itself in the event that the phone is dropped-- potentially reducing the damage to the phone and lens.

I'm just trying to steer the conversation towards monopoly, and away from larceny.

Why limit the supply? What goes wrong if there are too many taxis?

Does this nanny state have a nanny license, I wonder?