You do know New Mexico is IN the USA right?
You do know New Mexico is IN the USA right?
You are really being a dick with your un-useful rebuttals.
1. This thread is about Vegas, so asking drivers to speak clear English IS relevant;
2. Being a Cab driver is a SERVICE, which is paid for by the customer;
3. The service should be efficient and be a pleasant experience;
4. Most people do not want to hear loud music (never mind from which country or which type) while they are riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can listen to music when I get off;
5. Most people do not want to hear a loud one sided conversation in ANY language while riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can have a conversation when I get off;
6. When you get into a cab, you pay for efficient transportation to your destination. The service price should include proper navigation, if I have to pull out my phone and be the GPS, then I'll charge you half the price back;
7. GPS should be in every taxi in 2015, no exception, trying to defend the un-defendable is ludicrous;
8. Rent a car? And pay all those hotel fees for parking and the valet service? Did you really just say that, for Vegas? The only time renting a car in Vegas makes ANY sense, is if you are NOT going on the strip;
9. I dont want to get out and find a new cab, I want good service the first time, which is why I pay for it. This is WHY Uber and Lyft are getting traction, because the service is so utter shit at the moment. And that was the point of the OP, GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER if you dont want competition;
Not everyone travels the same way. The main point is, Taxi service is a paid service and if that industry wishes to remain relevant, they need to increase customer experience and quality of service. All your points where actually reinforcing the fact that the taxi services are shit, because your answer to everything was, Do it Yourself. In that case, Taxi's shouldnt exist, right?
I think you have it backwards.
They are indeed scammers and charlatans.
At the very least, its being profited by those who know how to game the NSF grant system.
Like the author of the RICO letter.
I would agree.
Lets start with the main author of this letter.
We should first address the fraud perpetrated by the main author of this RICO letter.
Ah, but they are right.
At least, the main author of this letter has been part of a conspiracy to defraud tax payers money through NSF grants.
Seems the host and main author of the RICO20 letter has been playing fast and loose with NSF grant money.
And yet, the report says, and I quote:
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise."
Seems to me Fukushima was a government failure in emergency management more than anything else.
You expect answers to your insults?
Ask a clear question and an answer you shall get, but a "are you stupid?" IS not a question.
have a reading comprehension fail.
Its not the entire economy, its only the budget for climate change.
If you can't read a simple budget report, its no wonder you believe the media.
Its all fine and dandy to call me names, but do you have any proof of the contrary?
I'll submit as exhibit A, all the western governments public budget reports for the last 3 decades.
Oh yeah, and this too:
Main Signatory of that RICO letter, been siphoning up to a Million a year from grant money he's getting through his NGO for a part time job.
You should tell them that those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
I'm not ignoring anything. I know that that CO2 is increasing. I know it causes some warming, current studies put climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at around 1.1C. Which means that much of the observed warming in the last 100 years cant be attributed to CO2 alone.
It still has to be demonstrated that a warmer planet is harmful to humans.
About the sub, your right, its not east Antarctica per say, the following article shows exactly where they did their measurements:
They have been steady and satellites which have a much better world wide coverage than sea and land data show it clearly.
Glaciers are melting because we are coming out of an ice age. The amount of melting is not increasing at an exponential rate, its been steady for hundreds of years, with year to year natural variability going up and down, but on a slow decline.
Arctic ice has been recovering nicely for the last 4 years, however as I said, its supposed to be melting and the rate isnt alarming.
Greenland had its shortest warm season in decades this year.
Western Antarctic ice shelf is unstable because it sits above underwater geothermal activity.
Eastern Antarctic ice thickness was determined to be MUCH thicker than anticipated last year, when for the first time they sent a small sub under the ice to measure thickness.
Sea level rise is still rising at the same rate as it has been for the past centuries with no acceleration in the rate.
BTW, after all that is said, it has warmed up, about 0.8c over the last 120 years. Which again, is nothing to worry about, as it has been warmer in recorded history (the last 2000 years), unless you look at the data in 2015 after it has been "adjusted" to reduce past temperatures to make current ones look warmer.
Seriously, don't repeat what the alarmists are telling you about the data, go find it yourself. Pick a specific subject and region and read the papers on it. Not one that confirms your bias, but half a dozen. You will see, what the MSM is selling, is not what the actual scientists are publishing.
Oh, and one last thing, do not make the mistake of only reading the conclusion. Scientists in climate science add in general statements about how it "could" get much worst in the future. This is necessary to get the grants. You'll find these wishy washy statements everywhere.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.