Personally I think laws against both are unconstitutional, but that's not the best argument. Good luck ever convincing anyone in the legal system you didn't know.
But streaming/pay services for video in their current form will never see a penny from me. For the way I consume media, their shortcomings are a deal breaker:
- Streaming is wholly unacceptable since it requires an internet connection. Offline viewing, and viewing without "buffering..." if it drops out for a minute, is important. Even "1080p" streams are noticeably worse than actual Blurays (and 12gb rips for that matter). Streaming should be AN option, not the only one.
- Permanent copies in a non-DRM'd format are still not the norm for movies/tv. They haven't learned from music.
- There's no excuse for such poor selections and different services offering different things. It's a blatant example of corporate greed preventing what consumers want.
- So are all types of geographic limitations/delays.
- Even more infuriating is when items available are removed from the service. And when the service itself up and shuts down.
None of these are limits of technology, and all of these are why legit offerings can't compete with illegal ones, regardless of price. Fix all of those, and add what is lacking in pirated sources (bonus materials, dl speed on some stuff, ease of access), and you'll find that like audio, legit video can also successfully compete with free.
"Any felony criminal conviction within seven years prior to the date of the background check for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, fraud, use of a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a violent crime or act of terror, a sexual offense, a crime involving property damage, and/or theft will make the applicant ineligible to be a TNC driver."
The "zero tolerance" policy on the other hand is much more onerous. Apparently they want to require the apps to have a feature to report suspected intoxication, and a single such report will trigger an automatic suspension until it's investigated further (implicitly until they complete a drug/alcohol test). While it may sound reasonable on the face of it, consider the potential for false reports based both on good intentions and worse, bad intentions ("that guy disagreed on [random political issue]! click, suspended!"). The training program isn't detailed, but that could certainly dissuade non-professionals if it requires actual online/offline classes.
Source: Full CPUC Proposed Rulemaking (via TechCrunch) (PDF) http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/169457749?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed
Second, calling them "terry stops" is not accurate. Terry requires them to be able to cite "specific and articulable facts" that give them reasonable suspicion to believe the individual was involved in a crime. Also, Terry limits the search to the outer garments solely for the purpose of checking for weapons for officer safety. As noted above, this is not the case. 780 guns from 685,724 (2011) isn't limiting themselves to this standard.
Also, the evidence is quite clear that they have quotas on how many of these stops they have to make. How fair do you think an officer struggling not to get reassigned to traffic duty is going to be? Is he really stopping people to help end violent crime?
And just to add an anecdote, I used to routinely conduct business on a block with one of the highest stop and frisk rates in Manhattan, in East Harlem. But I'm white and clean cut and well dressed. I was never been stopped in over a year of just standing there for 20-30 minutes 3 times a week. And the majority of white people in the neighborhood are there for a particular reason, but I wasn't profiled.
Clearly you weren't around during the days where plugging in a stock Windows machine resulted in just that if you didn't update it fast enough.
And that's the totality of accomplishment for spending billions and billions every year for decades trying to stop it, while eviscerating the constitution and running a mass incarceration policy that sees higher per capita imprisonment than any nation on earth, so-called 'oppressive' countries included... not to mention all the collateral damage, like an epidemic of forcing people to live in pain, torturing them and being a drain on the economy; or the complete loss of trust in a now profoundly corrupt law enforcement sector which views citizens as an enemy.