Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Vehicle Weight (Score 1) 825

by N1AK (#49738775) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers.

To give an anecdotal example, the firm I work for probably has ~400 lorries enter and leave site each day. The road outside directly outside, the first T junction, and the roundabout onto the main road all need repair a few times a year. What really highlights the difference is that on the roundabout, the lane used to turn into our site is wrecked but the other lane which our vehicles don't use can go years without needing repair, just because of a couple of hundred ~25T+ vehicles breaking from 60mph to 0-10mph every day.

Comment: Re:Tolls? (Score 1) 825

by N1AK (#49738639) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

I.e., the poor who drive older, used cars would be taxed more than the rich who can afford a new car every year.

I'm inclined towards the view that taxing new cars at point of sale based on emissions, instead of part of the road/fuel tax currently levied might be a more effective way to get emissions down without being too harmful to people at the bottom of society using older more inefficient cars because they can't afford to upgrade.

Tracking every mile a car does seems like surrendering a lot of information to the state in return for a very limited benefit.

Comment: Re:Impressive... (Score 3, Insightful) 150

by N1AK (#49687821) Attached to: World's Rudest Robot Set To Simulate the Fury of Call Center Customers
As crap as call centre customer service so often is, it doesn't make this a waste of money. Even if the company was perfect and never did anything wrong, they would from time to time receive calls from customers who are angry/touchy/rude, and giving staff good training in how to keep those interactions relatively positive is useful.

Comment: Re:It not very hard (Score 1) 167

by N1AK (#49671303) Attached to: How Spotify Can Become Profitable

$5 per month would be perfect, IMHO. Worth getting rid of the ads...

Free without ads would be 'perfect' but it doesn't mean it is a viable business model.

If they roughly half the cost, then they would need to more than double the number of paying customers just to stay where they are. I'm sure if they thought they could make more money by lowering the price they would.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 302

by N1AK (#49636179) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas
And you got a couple of clear answers, which you somehow failed to understand, and then went to to claim that the people responding were confused. Perhaps if you're country would do as poor a job of public healthcare as it seems to do of public education it's for the best that your healthcare is private.

Comment: Re:Why be mad (Score 2) 102

by N1AK (#49636157) Attached to: FBI Releases Its Files On DEF CON: Not Amused By Spot-the-Fed

It would be better if they played along and actually tried to hide as best as they could so they could IMPROVE on being incognito.

Arguably that's the worst thing they could do: Provide insights into how they try and remain undetected when amongst people who are trying to develop strategies and insights to detect them when there's nothing of value to gain. They'd be better off intentionally fitting stereotypes and doing a poor job of hiding at DefCon, then it might lure people into a false sense of security.

Comment: Re:i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 1) 254

by N1AK (#49630505) Attached to: VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak
To use your own phrase "I know this is hard to grasp for people like you" but orders are speech; thus to criminalise orders is to criminalise speech.

If your flawed rant about civil justice had any validity, it would still fail to explain why harm caused by physical violence should be 'criminal' but harm caused by threats or verbal abuse should be covered by 'civil' law.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 302

by N1AK (#49630325) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers, the government is simply requiring that they do background checks prior to sending them to pick up members of the public.

Comment: Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score 1) 302

by N1AK (#49630273) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.

Not in either of the EU nations I've had insurance in. In both cases it was normal to be able to choose from personal, personal & commuting, and personal & business. Some companies would automatically allow commuting within personal, but certainly not all. Additionally business cover is very restrictive in terms of what is covered; delivering pizza is likely to be fine (I am not a lawyer or expert) but carrying people, anything hazardous or high value etc would certainly not be covered by standard insurance.

Comment: Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score 1) 302

by N1AK (#49630229) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas
No they don't. Uber likes to say that a vehicle is only in commercial use when it is carrying a passenger, but that doesn't make it so. If I'm driving from my current location to the location of the customer it is commercial use (I wouldn't be doing it if wasn't working). Uber's position would be exactly like claiming that Chefs aren't at work unless they are actively producing a dish for a customer at that moment in time, if they were checking ingredients or turning on ovens etc "UberChef" would want it considered non-commercial.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 2) 302

by N1AK (#49630107) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.

Comment: Re:skating on the edge of legal? (Score 1) 302

by N1AK (#49630031) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

the laws themselves are out of place and incompatible with the future as they cling to the past.

What exactly about asking pseudo-taxi drivers to have a background check and insurance is out of place and incompatible with the future? Because those are exactly the things that Kansas is requiring here...

Just because the rules Uber happily ignore are often are antiquated certainly doesn't mean they all are.

Comment: Re:School me on well water (Score 1) 328

The resistance to fracking in the UK isn't about wells specifically, if at all, it's about pollution and contamination in general. You can argue all you like that this contamination is harmless and/or could be easily worked around, but the more fundamental issue is that this kind of contamination is exactly the kind of thing that the public were told categorically and unequivocally couldn't happen. What other unexpected contamination will there be, and what unforeseen (or suppressed) consequences are there?

All great discoveries are made by mistake. -- Young