Except this is not a race to the bottom. The ride share services are offering a higher quality product at, at least in the case of Uber, a premium price. It's the cabbies who are, and have been for many years, the bottom of the barrel.
Some people have also been living in a city and needing the occasional hired ride since before Uber and Lyft were around and remember well just how damned awful the medallioned taxis are. Seriously... screw the taxis. A pox upon their houses and I hope Uber or Lyft or Sidecar or whoever really does run them out of business entirely. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Yeah, I'm opposed to the laws that prop up the legacy taxi companies; but I've no love for the libertarian fringe. The ride-share companies simply provide such a vastly superior service that I want them to win.
I own a car too. And I usually use Uber or Lyft to get home so I can drink when I go out for a night on the town. And the regular taxis are just so bloody terrible that if the ride-sharing services DO lose the war and go out of business, I'll go back to the tedium of waiting for and navigating MUNI's Owl schedule to get home in the wee hours of the morning before I ever get in a cab again.
And yeah... User's tactics against Lyft are kind of scummy. And I do wish they'd, instead, focus on putting a few more nails into the coffins of the taxis. But Uber's tactics are significantly less scummy than the taxi industry's and, for that matter, the actual cabs themselves. So anything that strengthens Uber is still a win in my book.
Yes, so very yes.
Severability clauses in general need to be outlawed. I'd say that sneaking something that's illegal into a contract, in the hopes that the other party won't realize that it's illegal, is a crystal clear indicator at the very least of "negotiating" in bad faith and SHOULD be prosecutable fraud. Try to pull a stunt like that on someone; and his obligations to you should be wiped clean.
WTFH Slashdot!?!? Better part of two decades along, and you STILL choke on apostrophes and ellipses???
A friend of mine used to work at Yelp When he did, I asked him about this. (Accusations of cooked yelp reviews are far from a recent development.) For whatever itâ(TM)s worthâ¦ but I have no reason to suspect he was lying to meâ¦ he told me that sales and operations absolutely ARE firewalled from each other, that by no means do the sales types have the necessary administrative or database access to adjust a business' ratings, and that theyâ(TM)re not the sharpest tools in the shed anyway and probably wouldnâ(TM)t understand how to use said access if they had it.
He also told me, though, that their sales department was one of the slimiest bunch of lying scumbags heâ(TM)d ever encountered; and he wouldnâ(TM)t doubt for a moment that they were TELLING businesses that they could have their ratings adjusted if they bought ads.
In other words, no. You've got nothing besides made-up straw men and hyperbole.
Every iOS upgrade I can recall, even since Apple made OTA deltas available, has required affirmative permission from me before it installed. Would you care to enlighten us as to exactly which versions were pushed out and automatically installed without users' consent?
Whyâ¦ what a fascinating idea. To hold in my hand that capsuleâ¦ to know that life and death on such a level was my choice. Such power would set me up above the gods!
> Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?
Actually yes, I do. There were various discussions about at what point the crew knew they'd just shot down an airliner, or at what point they should have known that they were targeting one. There've even been various conspiracy theories that they knew it was an airliner all along and shot it down intentionally to kill someone or another who was onboard. But the US has always admitted that it was the one who shot down that airliner.
At no point has the US government tried to re-write history and disavow the blame by claiming that it not the US who pulled the trigger; but some bunch of locals who somehow managed to capture (and figure out how to operate) the Vincennes.
They've been dumbing down the gameplay on real games for years to make things easier the konsole kiddies. Look at Deus Ex: HR or the Xcom: EU vs. their namesakes for fine examples. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd cripple the graphics too. Can't let the children get jealous that someone else has something better, after all.
Or it could be old-fashioned racism. There are plenty of places in the US still where, if you're driving a Japanese car, the locals will see you as some kind of commie mutant traitor.
"Cool... Terminator vision!"
"the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing"
Under the ADA, it doesn't mater how large or small the business is. "Reasonable accommodations" have to be made at places open to the public. And so long as someone is not actively using Glass to record video, it's perfectly reasonable for someone whose prescription lenses include Glass functionality to be left alone in peace as he watches his movie. And yes, it is possible for someone's vision to be bad enough to bring the ADA into play; but still be adequately correctable with glasses.
Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.
And all that is completely aside from the point that it's ridiculous and narcissistic for people to assume that the only reason anyone might be wearing Glass to to secretly spy in them. It has "substantial non-infringing uses", and all that.
Do they even bother to do that at all anymore? I was under the impression that pretty much anything that hit the net before the official DVD/BR release came from Oscar screeners these days.
The part that baffles the crap out of me is the overbearing self-importance of the anti-Glass segment of the luddite brigade.
Their entire argument seems to revolve around the assumption that the only reason someone might want to own or wear Google Glass is to surreptitiously take pictures or video of them. There's a much smaller contingent that looks at its current form-factor and screams: "NERRRRRD!!!". But by far and large, the anti-Glass hate comes from the: "You're wearing that thing to take pictures of me, Me, ME!!!". That level of arrogance and narcissism both astounds and confounds me.
When *I* first heard about Google Glass, my thought was: "Cool... Terminator vision!". And shortly after, I thought: "Even cooler... Predator vision!!!". Yeah, the camera is a necessary part in generating the sort of informational overlays that I'm imagining. But the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing. And yes, I do know that Glass doesn't yet come close to those capabilities. But one day it certainly will.