Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Translation : (Score 4, Insightful) 314

by Darth Turbogeek (#47226275) Attached to: California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

These rules are here to defend taxi companies at their most lucrative source of income. There is not a single reason else.

And frankly, airports are exactly where I would WANT a ride sharing service over the entrenched taxi industry. After dealign with flying, the last thing I want is to deal with a taxi driver not interested for a second where or how far I want to go - and in fact is forced by law to pick up my patronage here because before that law... they would reject my destination for a "better" fare. Let alone the other issues taxis have like the queues and half the time there isnt one availible for too long.

No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.

We do have a premium taxi service here that works more like Uber and in general it's a mile better than the regular taxi services. Unfortuantly it's too small to be truly able to handle capacity. You know, if taxis worked more like the premium serives I'd be less sympathic to Uber and Co, but they arent so.... fuck em. Bring the ride sharign services on.

Comment: Re:The Arrogance of Humanity (Score 1) 686

by Darth Turbogeek (#47218583) Attached to: Aliens and the Fermi Paradox

IF intelligent life is rare and they find us, then you fucking bet they are going to want to visit. We'll be so unusual that other intelligent lifeforms will be compelled just by the fact we exist to check us out and find out what the hell we are. If intelligent life is common, then they'll visit because.... well it's nothing odd so lets say hi to make war or trade.

The simple fact is that if there's intelligent life and they know about us, then they'll be dropping by. Prime directives and shit like that are Star Trek masturbation fantasys that are clueless about how things really would work. The evidence so far however is utterly absent of any ET out there so it's a moot point.

Comment: Re:Paid (Score 1) 184

by Darth Turbogeek (#30437014) Attached to: Supreme Court Takes Texting Privacy Case

If there was no formal written policy declaring no lookie - it's claimed a person had a personal informal policy and this is not the department's policy - then SOL, no matter what the Lt. may have said.

I would further say that the fact the Lt went looking suggests there was something the employee was doing that wasnt kosher and there is more to this story. I am betting the person who got looked at was not doing their job.

The fact the SCOTUS took this up is a concern for businesses and sys admins. I would have thought it obvious there's no freedom of speech issues here.

Patents

+ - USPTO Examiner Rejects 1-Click Claims as 'Obvious'

Submitted by
theodp
theodp writes "Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as 'obvious' and 'old and well known', Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner's rejection under its hat, insisting that 'still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced' to a Judiciary Committee whose members included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families."

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...