Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unlicensed taxi broker (Score 1) 280

by LoyalOpposition (#48574239) Attached to: Court Orders Uber To Shut Down In Spain

That's the kind of logic that would agree with the right of people to sell themselves as slaves,

There are a number of flaws with your argument, but I would like to take this opportunity to mention only one--it's too powerful. You might ask what's wrong with having a powerful argument, but I'm not claiming that it's cogent or that its subject matter is wide ranging. I'm claiming that it proves many conclusions that you really don't want to prove. Let me get into specifics.

Allowing people to buy from farmers' markets is like letting them sell themselves as slaves. People need to buy from places that have paid government USD100.000 for the license.

Allowing people to marry whom they choose is like letting them sell themselves as slaves. People need to pay USD100.000 for the license to marry.

Allowing people to buy newspapers is like letting them sell themselves as slaves. Media need to be licensed by the government before they can disseminate their information.

~Loyal
 

Comment: Re:Greasing Palms. (Score 1) 280

by LoyalOpposition (#48557661) Attached to: Court Orders Uber To Shut Down In Spain

Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".

Regulation is no panacea and can be a plague. Many regulations cure a non-existent problem. Some regulations are viewed by the regulated industry as a barrier to entry, and that keeps their competition low. And there's always the problem of regulatory capture.

Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.

That's one of the largest barriers to entry. When licenses are less a certification that the industry meets minimum requirements and more an arbitrary limit to the number of competitors then the value of the license goes really high, and the competitors are able to keep prices artificially high.

But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.

See also: regulatory capture.

I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.

How do you explain the fact that the entrenched players are the ones who are fighting Uber, rather than people who have been injured by Uber's failings?

This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry.

...and the people who want to hire them. Don't forget about them.

They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.

It appears to me that it's possible for an entity to be both, simultaneously. Someone could be fighting the good fight and at the same time be a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs.

They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?

Fanciful comparisons aside, maybe Uber is right. You have certainly not refuted their arguments in your post.

So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.

Do you hold any opinions on scheduling companies?

But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.

Well, I think I'm not a cab company. And I begin to suspect you are one. Whatever--let me say this; one man's hoodwink is another man's political activism.

So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.

Ooooh! So close you nearly convince me.

Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.

You know--when I went to Uni I gave my roommate rides from his home to the campus. I charged him half the cost of petrol. I suppose I should have paid USD100.000 for a shield.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:Unlicensed taxi broker (Score 1, Troll) 280

by LoyalOpposition (#48556441) Attached to: Court Orders Uber To Shut Down In Spain

Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.

I think that really should be the choice of the person choosing which taxi service to use. If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choice. If Uber, or anyone, wishes to provide a service screening potential drivers, and if they are successful enough (read--as successful as standard taxi services, or nearly-so,) then they should have that choice. If soccer mom decides that Uber is safe enough for her concerns then she should have that choice. Frankly, this looks to me like a blatant attempt by the standard taxi companies to keep competition out of the market.

Apropos of nothing, I note that you wouldn't use such a service, so you're suggesting a law that wouldn't affect your choices, but which would keep other people from being able to make theirs.

~Loyal

Comment: Re:Here we go again (Score 2) 496

by LoyalOpposition (#48427961) Attached to: As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines

Welcome to LIFE 101. Humans have kids, if your business runs on such thin margins that you cant account for that, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HIRING EMPLOYEES, period. Humans have babies, it MUST be accounted for. If you are running your business without accounting for this, then you are a shitty human.

Thereby proving Archangel Michael's point about political correctness. Just to be clear, are you saying that it's much more acceptable for people to be unemployed than for employers to pay more for their more valuable employees?

~Loyal

Comment: Re:Liberals are Egoistical Maniacs (Score 1) 330

I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".

To be clear...do you claim that one shouldn't take a "pro choice" person seriously unless that person is against all coercion? In particular, a pro choice person should permit a person to hire and fire whomever they will, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation? They should allow people to collude together to restrict prices, markets, entry, engage in price gouging and any other means to increase profits. They should be able to spray whatever weedkiller, fertilizer, or other chemical on their lawns they wish. They should be able to decide how much of their money goes to the poor, unwed mothers, drug addicts, sick, or arts. They should be able to quit the military any time they wish, including on the battle front while engaged with the enemy. A pro choice person should be in favor of allowing a person to make any choice whatsoever. Is that what you claim?

Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro life" very narrowly?

~Loyal

Comment: Re:Who cares? What's the concern? (Score 1) 1007

Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".

Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".

Comment: Re:Ooh..."unease" (Score 1) 1007

The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.

How about if you were to go to the conference and ask them, "Do you deny that you're attacking the university?" Or, "Why are you abusing the reputation of the University for your own gain? Wouldn't you agree that's a despicable act?"

~Loyal

Comment: Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score 1) 1007

But see that won't work because these people are not in any way, shape, or form 'rational' to start with; logic and reason won't work on someone who believes in fairy-tale level nonsense.

Why, these people aren't even human. They're less than human--or, if you prefer the latin, untermenschen.

~Loyal

One of the chief duties of the mathematician in acting as an advisor... is to discourage... from expecting too much from mathematics. -- N. Wiener

Working...