Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What does taxi service cost the public? (Score 1) 215

by drinkypoo (#47811543) Attached to: Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany

0ne of the costs is for licensing is administration of the testing & licensing itself, as well as any oversight, inspections, etc.

Germany already has inspections, and the driver already pays for the inspections. If the problem is inadequate inspection, send the vehicle for more inspections. This is not a cost to the people, because the driver already pays the cost. If there is no significant additional licensing, there is no significant additional licensing cost.

Some cities build taxi pickup lanes and other infrastructure to facilitate the service in specific areas.

Yes, and those costs are seen as a benefit to the city, because they ease congestion.

Comment: Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score 1) 215

by drinkypoo (#47811529) Attached to: Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany

Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers.

They use them more frequently, but they don't use them any more heavily. If you were taxing vehicles based on the damage they do to the road, buses and trucks would pay basically all the taxes, and passenger vehicles would pay basically none.

They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times.

The former is an issue, but cabbies are well-known to choose their fares racially in many countries, why wouldn't they do the same in Germany? It's very difficult to prove. As for accessibility, the market will provide if competition is permitted. The only reason to have such a requirement is that licensed taxis were collectively granted a monopoly on transport for hire, and this restriction on competition in the market prevents market forces from working.

They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.

This is solved easily enough with laws requiring more insurance for hire vehicles, and doesn't require a taxi permit system.

Comment: Re:Would it really be worse without patents? (Score 1) 61

by drinkypoo (#47811487) Attached to: SpaceX Challenges Blue Origin Patents Over Sea-Landing Rocket Tech

Patents are still useful for small businesses because it provides protection against someone else coming along and patenting your product after the fact.

Not really. They grant patents which conflict with existing patents all the time, and you still need to be able to take a suit to court to prove that the subsequent patent should not have been granted, which means you still need millions of dollars in your legal fund.

Comment: Re:Too simple (Score 1) 388

by drinkypoo (#47811457) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

That's the best response to his post you got?

It's the only necessary response.

His response tried to clarify that for you and the other readers and to respond to your fallacy, the No True Scotsman:

Actually, USDA took over the name "organic" by force without consulting those who coined the term. You're using a pretty pathetic determining factor, sheep.

Comment: Decommissioned (Score 3, Insightful) 178

by eldavojohn (#47807697) Attached to: Interview: Ask Christopher "moot" Poole About 4chan and Social Media
Canvas (site, not the HTML5 element) and DrawQuest were killed earlier this year. I used it briefly in its beta form and thought it was a neat idea. Any chance you could elaborate on why it was shut down? The e-mail I got was brief and vague -- were you facing copyright issues? Monetization problems? Image space issues? Care to spill your lessons learned?

Comment: Re:Property rights (Score 1) 204

by drinkypoo (#47806785) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

By inalienable rights, no doubt he's referring to those rights that according to the Constitution, the government cannot take from you. The Constitution does not grant those rights; it prohibits the Federal government from interfering with them. Now, feel free to rant about the obvious overstepping that's been going on since the Civil War.

I don't have to, because you pointed it out. It proves that the government doesn't actually consider those to be rights. We have no rights, period, end of story.

Comment: Re:Empty Calories (Score 1) 390

by drinkypoo (#47806085) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Oh actually, I don't really eat fried chicken with breading. That's not because I won't eat it, it's because I can't find any worth eating. We used to have a broaster in town but the local supplier closed up shop. When I was on Atkins I was just frying chicken thighs in oil as a means of fast, complete cooking. Add soy sauce, powdered ginger, and powdered garlic for an easy asian-ish flavor...

Comment: Re:Calorific value? (Score 3, Insightful) 390

by drinkypoo (#47805913) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

More important than either of these is the calorific value of the relative diets. Both of them (low carb / low fat) ultimately work by restricting the types of food, and therefore the calories,

No, in fact, that's the opposite of what this study shows. I'm not surprised you got this wrong, because you are simply parroting the prevailing thinking, but it is plain wrong and this study shows that. Of course, so did the ketogenic/Atkins diet, but you ignored that so it's not surprising that you're ignoring this.

Irony: Holding forth with an obsolete opinion as a reply to an article about a study which proves your opinion obsolete. You may try again, but you have failed abjectly and you're spreading bullshit misinformation to make yourself appear relevant.

Comment: Re:Too simple (Score 2) 390

by drinkypoo (#47805885) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

That is why even organic meat contains sugar and all kinds of syrup nowadays.

Uh, what? Only processed foods, and then frankly, almost none of them. The lack of unnecessary ingredients is part of the draw to most Organic brands. Only the fake-ass organics like "O" (Safeway's brand) are full of bullshit like that.

Comment: Re:Empty Calories (Score 1) 390

by drinkypoo (#47805781) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

I absolutely packed myself with steak fried in butter, salads with massive wads of bleu cheese, and six-egg omelets with cheddar and some sort of pork product (usually sausage, sometimes bacon) for nine months of ass-sitting and lost ninety pounds. I've kept it off. The thirty more pounds I lost after that while working out and putting on muscle and eating pretty much the same stuff, but less steak and more fried chicken, I've pretty much put back on. But I'm eating "normally" now, including occasional fried food binges when the fair comes through or what have you.

Comment: Re:Painkillers, HA! (Score 1) 214

by drinkypoo (#47805761) Attached to: States Allowing Medical Marijuana Have Fewer Painkiller Deaths

You can only judge by the samples you've got.

Right. And if you wanted reliable statistics, you'd go out and purchase samples all over the country, then weigh them based on population.

and they seem to be reasonably consistent.

Not really. The figures jump up and down quite a bit. The scale is something like 1-25 and we're seeing variations of 2 and 3 year-on-year, that's a massive delta and easily ascribed to inaccuracy.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman