It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.
The separation is as arbitrary as any other taxing criteria. The criteria applied here has nothing to do with driving someone you don't know. It's about charging extra for vehicle registration to companies whose main purpose is to drive around goods or people for a profit. Your original question was "Why should I apply for a commercial license?". The answer was "You don't", because you don't meet the criteria. The discussion here is not about you. It's about uber, which apparently meets the criteria but somehow gets away not paying extra.
since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure
Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.
The question is not wether you pay for the infrastructure but rather how much you pay. You would pay considerably more if the companies that met the above criteria wouldn't have to pay extra. Is the criteria fair? Maybe not. Maybe all vehicles should pay the same regardless of their purpose, or pay based on mileage, but that's a completely different discussion.
All you are saying is that, under the current circumstances, driving is the most cost-effective means of transportation for you (and your competitors). If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living. In that sense, driving is not an absolute requirement for your business. That's not the case of uber, and since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure is so central to their business model, it's arguably fair for them to pay extra for it.
Maybe it's not fair that a startup paid as much as an stablished company. But maybe it's not fair that they used the publicly-funded infrastructure for free either.
You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients. You drive because it's more efficient or convenient, but it's not an absolute requirement for your business. On the other hand, driving *is* what uber does. You take that out and they have no business. That's the key difference.
I thought the general principle was that if you are making a profit off publicly-funded infrastructure (in this case, roads) you should be taxed more than the general public, hence the special license for commercial vehicles. I can't see why uber and the like should be exempted.
... five computers.
I'm sure these girl's work has some merit, but this is hardly a breakthrough. Rhizobial inoculation of soybean is a common agricultural practice around the world.
So Communists believe in restricting economic freedom. Should we call for the boycott of companies that hire communist employees? Wait! That already happened. It was called McCarthyism.
You fight political ideas by convincing the majority of people that these ideas are wrong, not by trying to silence the proponents of the ideas you oppose.
I live in Argentina, where any software company getting a CMMI certification can apply for a tax cut. Because of that, CMMI was all the rage around eight years ago or so. Turns out CMMI was so utterly useless and cumbersome that at this point most companies prefer to forget about the tax cuts rather than bother with being CMMI certified. Only companies seeking government contracts continue doing so.
Glad it was already found.
To understand the risks that this type of events involve check what happened in Brazil several years ago when radioactive medical material went missing and ended up killing several people
You can take a sample test yourself. See how basic the questions are and feel appalled to see the % of students in your country that managed to pass each level.
For example, only 11% of students in my country (Argentina) were able to reach level 3 (identify the smallest value in a table). Highest rank for that question was Shanghai-China (89%). USA was 48%.
Well, he obviously can't. That's why he is asking the US government to do it for him.
Ironically, in 2009 Chavez ordered to confiscate one of these body exhibitions that was on tour in Caracas, because he said it was immoral to put unsepulchered bodies on display.
In case you understand Spanish, you can hear it from the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2MfLT-U2qo