You don't even need to go that far really.
You don't even need to go that far really.
uber seeks to not follow the laws that in place for taxi services
Why do we need such laws?
taxi industry used every political maneuver in its arsenal to keep Uber and Lyft off the strip
The only way to keep a competitor out of "your" turf is — or ought to be — by providing superior service at lower price. Being able to use "political maneuvers" instead or even addition to that is a sign of bona fide corruption.
It does not matter, whether the politicians involved took bribes or were sincere — the government simply should not have the power to be a player. The war, that Uber, Lyft et al wage against taxis is simply the more visible of the fights, which private businesses wage every day. We can bemoan the undue influence of lobbyists all day long, but the underlying problem is that, given the number of licensing requirements and regulations, the corporations can not afford not to have a lobbyist on payroll. Instead of, or, at best, in addition to, pleasing us, the consumers, all businesses of appreciable size must be pleasing the government as well.
That's not free market capitalism, and it sucks...
Yup. This is why I no longer live in the white trash neighborhood that I grew up in. I don't want my children to feel so unsafe at school that they feel compelled to arm themselves (like I did).
Despite the liberal gun hysteria, I feel VERY safe in my America despite the fact that it is also very well armed. My neighbors are not animals. I can't say that about the neighborhood I grew up in.
If any blacks want to flee that crap, I will happily welcome them with open arms.
The problems in the hood won't be fixed with a successful gun confiscation program. They will just be easier to ignore because liberals won't have gun murder statistics to fixate over anymore.
When any sort of event occurs, people just use it as an excuse to push their current agenda. It doesn't matter if it has any relevance to the current event. There isn't any consideration given to that at all.
That's my main problem with the usual knee jerk reactions crying "do something". That and the fact that they only react when it's white victims.
No one seems interested in doing a root cause analysis. No one wants to actually really solve the problem. They just want to mindlessly apply the bag of tricks associated with their agenda whether they will work or not.
> "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority;
Yes. But I can point to examples of people getting arrested for scolding other people's children in the here and now versus 30 years ago.
There has been a real cultural shift against harsh discipline of any sort. This even extends to your own children. People will brag on Facebook about being willing to turn people into CPS for petty shit (like scolding).
In the 70s, glorification of hoods was just cultural. Now it's the legal norm.
> Yep. About time that second amendment was updated to reflect the modern military prowess of the United States, and the lack of the need for 'militias'.
Then do it then. Stop with all of the foreplay and whining and do it already. Stop pussyfooting around.
No liberal has the balls to introduce such an Amendment.
Although with things like the ACA, they don't think they need to. They think that they can just ignore the law anyway or try to redefine it after the fact to suit them.
...because they didn't already have laws about drugs and gang activity. That's not even getting into the metal detectors and school cops that such places already had. In other words, it's an entirely different world that gun crazed liberals have absolutely zero experience with.
Again. That law is redundant.
> People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely.
Only in your fantasy land.
In real life they couldn't care less about car safety ratings and themselves give you dirty look when you tell them to not walk in the street.
I WISH people were frightened of cars. They would get out of the damned street.
The "world" may have forgotten about it in a week or two but schools and governments still fixated on it. That's the important part. The effects of it are still being felt in the form of "zero tolerance" policies and morons mistaking clocks for bombs.
Actually, first they came for John Connor's mother.
For a suitably time-loopy definition of "first"...
Each of those represent a set of preferences. People know what they like and what they want. They certainly won't have crap shoved down their throats if they have an alternative, and Free Software provides that.
When GNOME3 was released, the forks pretty much started immediately.
It's not unlike what happened when Oracle bought Sun.
> Nobody knows it, but god damn do the linux fan-boys hate it!
Quite frankly, I am indifferent to it.
Without this article, I wouldn't even know that it's still around.
> And by the way, if somebody ever tells you to never consume something that has a chemical name you can't pronounce, they're full of shit
No they aren't. You should be able to understand what you are eating. Even processed foods don't require ingredients that most people can't pronounce.
Even the things that are harmless should not be ignored. If you don't recognize it, you shouldn't put it in your body and you should avoid it until you do know what it is.
Journalists are another matter. If they don't recognize Niacin for what it is when they see it on a food label then they need to just STFU.
It is NOT a bad idea to understand what you are buying.
Capitalism only thrives with rational consumers.
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.