Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 202

by Xenx (#48905789) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers
It's fine if you took my original statement as a direct offence, but it wasn't meant that way. Your argument was stupid, plain and simple. It wasn't supposed to be an attack on you, just your flawed argument. I previously explained part of why commercial cost more, further explanation is below. I didn't have the time or desire to deal with it further when I was at work. It came out at least partially wrong. However, that doesn't absolve you from being a complete fucking twat to me.

The simplest way to explain why you were wrong is that the insurance companies themselves charge more for commercial use. It sounds like a tautology, but it isn't. They base their rates on statistics. If the statistics say there is a higher risk of either more or larger payouts under commercial use, then there must actually be a higher risk. From what I can find, there is higher liability when a commercial entity is involved in an accident.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 202

by Xenx (#48902135) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers
I really don't know what your fucking issue is. I mean, really. I don't. The only thing I can tell is you like to be a fucking asshole to random people on the internet. I did nothing, except state that your argument is idiotic and that I didn't have time to deal with it further. You were then free to continue on with your fucking life at that point, but felt that insulting me would be more beneficial to you. Enjoy your wasted excuse of a life.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 202

by Xenx (#48898979) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers
Insurance companies should not (don't) have to cover ride-sharing under a personal policy. The drivers are for-hire drivers, in some capacity. Those drivers wouldn't spend as much time on the road, and would have fewer passengers in the car, if it weren't for their commercial activities. That means more chances of an accident, and a higher payout if/when there is one.They definitely have every right to require you pay extra, or not be covered when "on duty".

As for Uber providing coverage, I did read that at least one did offer coverage for anything the insurance company doesn't cover. My statement was more generalized to cover the industry as a whole. As far as ease of implementation goes, I think it's best for the company to cover the driver/passenger when on duty. The company has direct access to when the drivers are active and be able to provide coverage for those times. There would be no confusion, no extra work to determine whether the accident was covered or not.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 4, Insightful) 202

by Xenx (#48898669) Attached to: Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers
The difference is the Uber/Lyft drivers are actually employed to do the driving. Realistically, the drivers wouldn't be giving those passengers a ride if they weren't being paid for it. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a problem with the driver not having commercial insurance. However, in that case the company needs to insure the driver when "on duty".

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

by Xenx (#48834887) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw
Just because Google didn't need to release a security update to 4.3 between its release and 4.4, doesn't mean they wouldn't have. Any speculation after the fact, is just that. Also, for what it's worth.. iOS updates have been turning older iPhones to shit for years. Sure, they support 3 versions of the OS out.. but usually the device can't handle the update. It comes back to design choice again. Google decided 24mo was enough to support the Galaxy Nexus. The hardware wasn't going to be able to keep up with the 4.4 OS update. It's a different approach, with usability in mind. You obviously have your own bias(who doesn't), and I'm just going to leave it at that.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

by Xenx (#48825155) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw
The Galaxy Nexus received Jellybean(4.3), which came out 20 months after the phone was released. So no, they didn't abandon it after 18 months. Kitkat came out 2 years after the Galaxy Nexus. So, you'd at least have an argument if you said 2 years. However, hardware and software for mobile devices have been improving at such a pace that you shouldn't expect more than that right now. I don't disagree that updates in the early(prior to 2014) days of Android weren't handled well. It was a choice made by Google, allowing the manufacturer's more freedom to control the OS on their devices. A choice that they themselves have agreed didn't work out well. They have already taken steps both internally(by decoupling more from the OS and putting it in the playstore), and with the manufacturer's(by putting pressure on them for timely updates). Complaining about update support for devices, after Google started addressing the issue, is just idiotic.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

by Xenx (#48799221) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw
But, it isn't Google holding things up. People that want updates relatively soon after Google releases them have the option to purchase Nexus devices. Purchasing manufacturer specific devices, means it's up to the manufacturer to provide the updates. There is absolutely no reason to blame Google for the manufacturer's problem. I'm not saying the arrangement is perfect. I'm just saying Google is doing their part, other parties are taking their time or flat out not bothering to update "older" devices.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

by Xenx (#48795239) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw
This is complete BS. Google does not charge for the OS. They have newer versions of the OS, without the vulnerability. There is no reason for them to write a patch for outdated software, when there is a free updated version of the software available. They are not the ones that decide whether the manufacturer's release the newer versions for their phones. This is why Google has opted to move more functionality into components that can be updated via the play store. They've also been working with the manufacturer's to improve things. They made a choice to allow freedom with the OS. They realised there were flaws in that over the years and are taking steps to improve things for the users. Their design and licensing choices may of allowed the problem, but they're definitely not the ones responsible for lack of updates.

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 556

The outcriers are being overly sensitive about something that frankly doesn't matter. He wasn't actively attacking their faith with the tweet. At worst, it could be considered poor taste. You say his methods are a popular way to make fun of people, but I see it as a playful twist akin to changing a quote to fit a different theme. Things like that are done quite often, for positive reasons. People are getting upset, because they're too self-conscious about their religious beliefs. They think that because he doesn't feel the same way about religion, he must be attacking them. My original quibble was with the statement as fact that he did it deliberately to offend, when there is no evidence to back it up.

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 556

I believe he chose his wording as a play on the significance of the day, but in no way as a slight to Jesus(person, or idea) or to the religious community. Nothing about the message sounded like it was trying to slight the religious community. Since the content wasn't overtly offensive, and he claims it wasn't intended that way, there is no reason to assume it was supposed to be.

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.

Working...