Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 1) 325 325

But basic contract law fundamentally condradicts the notion of backcanceling. If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

You breached the part of your contract where you promised not to do what the insurer considers commercial driving. If you lied about it, it might also be insurance fraud, maybe even a crime.

Comment: Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 3, Informative) 325 325

they are protecting for the laws that exist that protect them, to be enforced. It's their rights. To be a taxi driver you need a pay a massive license fee, that's how it is. You can't just tell people you're a taxi driver and start making money, there's the insurances and all that, needed. Uber has NONE of it. If anything happens in a "uber taxi", you, your family and friends, essentially eat sh*t. Because not only was your using their illegal, they also don't any have sort of insurance that can protect you.

In the USA? Not quite.

Uber is not a taxi, it's a limo service. Limos are regulated in some (all?) states, but differently than taxis. You can't hail a limo on the street (or airport lane), you have to call them (phone or app) to specifically come to you. Limos don't have "medallions" and are not a limited quantity. The requirements for special driver's license, insurance, and so on, are different than taxis.

Uber provides significant insurance to it's drivers, and it's not "illegal" (at least not in the USA). And they do pay out on claims. Other tort arguments seem unlikely. HOWEVER: When you drive for Uber, your own PERSONAL insurance policy is probably void (most carriers). In fact, if you have EVER used your vehicle for Uber, your insurance is voided -- even if your claim had nothing to do with any Uber trip. If you get hit on the way to the grocery store or injure someone on your way to your day job, your nasty surprise is that you had no valid insurance at that time. Because you once on another occasion used your vehicle for a purpose that totally voids your insurance.

When you call up an insurance company these days to report an accident, the very first words out of their mouth are: "Have you ever used your vehicle for Uber, Lyft, or anything like that?" Because if they find out (and, being insurance investigators, they WILL find out) that the answer is "Yes", then they will inform you that at that time, you voided all your insurance. You Are Fucked.

Comment: Re:One small problem (Score 3, Informative) 509 509

Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.

Good luck.

Where I live, we do this all the time. In fact, we open carry and concealed carry into there every other Thursday for the meeting of our local gun rights organization. This is 5 miles from Washington D.C.

Comment: Re:Obvious (Score 1) 350 350

Anyway, Apple never did this, because they want people to get their music from the iTunes music store, and everyone else doesn't because the carriers won't let them [at least here in the US].

My older iPod nano has an FM radio built in for listening to music. (It does not have any Internet connection; iTunes is via USB.)

Comment: already illegal (Score 1) 150 150

Many states have laws on the books, rarely enforced, that make it a crime to hide your face by wearing any kind of mask in public. In the past, this has been about masked bandits. In the near future, you will be arrested for wearing these "invisibility" (IR or whatever) glasses in public. There will be sensors to detect when you're wearing them, and a handheld app for tagging you. The result will be a physical intervention (guard or policeman comes over to you) or correlation with your communications device emissions, photo/video stream as you walk around past public cameras, and license plate tracking. And once you've worn the glasses, there will be plenty of evidence to come knocking on your door for the "masking" crime. Whenever they feel like coming to get you, since the statute of limitations will be 6 years or something. I wonder what the catchphrase will be in the advertisements admonishing people not to "mask".

Comment: Re:Attack vector Port is SSH (22), passwd guessing (Score 1) 98 98

chihowa writes:
But you have to brute force a username as well as a password. These attacks aren't in any way targeted and "root" is present everywhere. I've never seen anyone try to ssh into my machines as the user geantvert or chihowa. Have you?

Well, not before today...

Comment: Re:Whaaaa? (Score 1) 113 113

What article did you read? The one i read said:

"It added the pilot didn’t have sufficient certification for night flight with passengers or flying on instruments alone."

I guess its possible, but ive never heard of someone getting their commercial before their IFR.

The Commercial certificate does not require an Instrument rating.
However: The pilot, age 29, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for single engine land, multi-engine land and instrument airplane.

But he did not meet the currency requirements, particularly FAR 61.57(b).
According to all available documentation, the pilot undertook an illegal flight for which he was not qualified.

Flying at night can be very disorienting, hence the currency requirement. That alone could have caused the crash. This has been happening since long before portable electronics were invented. There is no evidence that cell phone cameras were used on this flight. Actually, we know that his GoPro camera definitely was not used. He had a habit (documented on GoPro) of careless and reckless operation: using a cell phone in critical phases of flight (including allowing passengers to use their flash cameras). On some previous flights, both were used, which is why the NTSB is wildly speculating that cell phone/camera usage is what happened this time.

Comment: Re: I am not sure what the hoopla is about (Score 1) 307 307

That oath is to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

What the fuck do you think a "domestic enemy of the Constitution" looks like? Look for the suits with an American flag lapel pins. That's where they hide.

So you think people who sometimes wear suits are evil, and people who wear lapel flags sometimes are evil. Would it surprise you to learn that the person who posted the article exactly matches your description?

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?

Working...