That's all true and not even disputed in the paper (which is linked in the article). The paper doesn't argue that all universal search results are bad for consumers, and some definitely are better. What's at issue is "local" search, like looking for a doctor in your city. In this case, there isn't one correct "answer," there are a bunch of them. And what you probably want are doctors with lots of good reviews. Instead, you get doctors with fewer reviews who happen to also have google+ pages.
> 2) Ease of Payment
2.a. Payment is handled via Uber, not the driver, and price is agreed ahead of time. No possibility for hidden charges, unapproved charges, sightseeing tours, etc.
2.b) Pricing Standardization. Ever been in a DC Taxi before they installed meters? They had a "zone" system and your rate was based on how many zones you crossed. Not familiar with the city? Good luck figuring it out. Every city has its own quirks and pricing games. With Uber, you know exactly what you're going to pay and how the transaction will be handled.
5) Convenience. No standing on the corner waiving your hands in the air. In a strange city where cabs aren't everywhere? How do you call one? How long will it take? Where are they? With Uber, you'll see where your cab is while it's on route and know exactly when they'll arrive.
I'm not bothered by dissenting opinions. I'm bothered by reflexively produced bullshit showing neither reading nor thinking ability.
Then it's good neither the AC nor phantomfive were making that argument, now were they?
If you read customer requirements as well as you show you read a two-line slashdot post, I shudder to think of what code quality your customers get.
It's funny how you libertards suddenly forget about freedom and the big bad government when it's someone doing something you disapprove of.
Chinese government corruption has moved away from the central government to the local governments. It's not fair or accurate to say that there hasn't been progress made.
RTFA: "FCC requirements ban requiring a customer to consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing or advertising calls as a condition of a purchase..."
everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally.
And by "everyone" concluding that, you mean nobody.
Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist.
No, what it means is that anyone who talked about billions of galaxies 1000 years ago, was talking out of their ass, and making up crazy shit. Nobody knew there were billions of galaxies nor had reason to suspect there were billions of galaxies. And if by amazing chance, someone back then said there are billions of galaxies, they were being either stupid or dishonest (or both). Even if they just happened to be correct, I guarantee that their arguments for saying that, were no less stupid and no less deceitful, than their neighbor who talked about the world being carried by Great A'Tuin.
Yes, a god could exist, but we have no reason to think it might, and no reason to think we know what it's like, or what its name is, or how many there are, or how big or fast or smart they are, whether or not they love or hate gays, etc. But mystics just pile the bullshit on top of bullshit, in an enormous pile, ignoring that even the first piece stunk. It's no less crazy than talking about unicorns, and saying it's wrong is no crazier than saying someone's ideas about the existence of unicorns is wrong.
Pick a card, any card, but don't say it out loud.
I know what card you picked. You picked the three of hearts.
Was I right? There's a 1/52 chance I was right, but a 52/52 chance that I was fucking lying. The truth is that I didn't have the faintest idea what card you would pick, and if you listen to my bullshit about how I know what cards people will pick, you are not on the path to learning anything, except maybe about how good I am at slinging bullshit. After all my bullshit, you still won't know anything more about cards or how to predict what card people will choose. It is empty of knowledge.
There's no such thing as "post-empirical science." That sort of scholarship already has a name: "religion."
It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.
Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.
But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.
She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada.
I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.
Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.
The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.
My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."
There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."
Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?
The key is to keep this simple truth in mind: it's a job. You do it to survive.
Don't let your sense of self-worth and your identity get tied up in your view of your career. Your job does not define who you are, you do it because someone is paying you to do it for them.
There is satisfaction in doing the work well; and it is nice if the work fits with your personal tastes, but if you refuse to let it define you, you will be the happier for it.
And as a definite plus, it will strengthen your negotiation position. If it is just a job, it's easier to walk away if the compensation does not suit you.
And that has been Tesla's argument for the last ten years, yet they still lose about $9,000 on each car they make.
"On" each car, or "for" each car?
"On" makes it sound like their marginal costs are negative -- that, literally, producing one more car increases their losses by $9K. Were it "for" each car, then they're losing money only after fixed costs, R&D, etc. are taken into account.
That latter makes considerably more sense -- folks can legitimately decide to back a company investing in itself rather than taking out a profit; indeed, Amazon has done that for years.