If a serial killer killed you during your Uber ride, how would you give them a bad review?
Uber would know you didn't arrive. I suppose the serial killer could deliver your phone to your destination...
Also, you could start calling 911 or taking other action with your phone as soon as you realized something was going wrong. That wasn't an option for taxis when the current regulations were set up.
Wrong, breeding for desired characteristic is an entirely different matter than what Monsanto is doing.
So, how do you feel about selective breeding processes that include drenching the organisms in radiation or mutagenic chemicals in order to dramatically increase the mutation rate? Nearly everything in your grocery store was bred via this method, which has been in use for at least a century, because it works really well. By massively increasing the mutation rate you can get your desired characteristics orders of magnitude faster than relying on natural mutations and cross-breeding.
If you're not okay with that method, then there's not much available for you to eat.
If you are okay with that method, can you explain how insertion of single gene to produce a desired effect is worse that thousands of random mutations, all of which are completely unknown outside of the immediately-observable phenotypic effects?
The fact is that humans have been doing various degrees of genetic engineering on our food crops for millenia, and massively increased it in the last couple of centuries (once Darwin explained how it worked). The methods of the last couple of decades are refinements which, if anything, should be dramatically safer than what came before, since the changes are smaller and better-controlled.
The taxi industry is regulated for very good reasons (one being safety)
I hear this all the time, but no one ever elaborates on what the reasons are. You said safety, but didn't say what the regulations are, how they are intended to affect safety and whether or not they really do.
One regulation that does make sense is the requirement that they carry commercial insurance policies. I think Uber has addressed that part (though I know some think Uber's solution inadequate).
As far as I can tell, the rest of the regulations are just an attempt to construct a functional reputation system in a context where little information is available to riders. By making it difficult and expensive for people to become cabbies, and relatively easy for them to lose that privilege, regulations ensure that only people who are serious about making taxi service a long-term business will do it. For exaple, this prevents J. Random Serial Killer from painting his car yellow and using it to pick up victims. Unless J. Random is also very wealthy, in which case he has lots of easier options. That's just one example, but the same line of reasoning applies to many other forms of abuse.
That all makes sense in a context where riders have no way to judge cabs other than by their appearance. But smartphones and the real-time, ubiquitous access to driver reputation databases they make available change the equation. Or so it seems to me.
Can anyone articulate precisely what other problems the regulations solve, and why the "rideshare" model (yes, I know it's not really ride sharing; let's discuss substantive issues, not quibble about naming) doesn't address them as well, or better? I'd like, for once, to have a conversation about this subject that goes beyond "Uber is exploitative and law-breaking!!!" and discusses the actual underlying issues. In what way, precisely, are cab regulations a better/safer/more efficient solution than ridesharing?
Obviously you can't invert md5, but if I hash my list, and you hash your list, and there is significant overlap, you can, to a reasonable but not 100% certainty, figure out which items on my list correspond to items on your list.
Depends on how it's done. For example, the advertiser could generate a bloom filter and provide that, rather than hashes of individual items on the list. Assuming the false positive rate was tuned correctly, you can use this method to arrange to provide very little information, while still generating the matches you want (plus some). Most advertisers wouldn't know how to tune the false positive rate appropriately, of course, but Google could tell them.
That's just off the top of my head, first glance at the problem. I suspect that there are even cleverer techniques that could be used, and while I don't know any details of how this system works, I do know Google engineers, and Google privacy design policies and procedures, and I'd be shocked if there were any obvious way to extract personally-identifiable information, in either direction.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I'm speaking only for myself.)
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus.
Not all college students are mature enough to own a gun responsibly.
Apparently the college students in Utah are. Campus carry has been legal for more than a decade. Number of student shooting rampages: zero.
So what you're saying is that all (or virtually all) campuses are gun free, so the fact this specific campus is gun free is pretty much meaningless.
No, actually. Several US states permit firearms on campuses. See the map at http://concealedcampus.org/sta... (hover over each state to see its rules).
...the way pedestrians act in Boston and New York: total chaos. People wander across the street randomly, and drivers are very aware that this is going to happen, so they slow down.
Interestingly, Boston and New York have very different pedestrian accident rates. New York has 1.52 pedestrian deaths per 100K, not much better than San Francisco's 1.70. Boston, though, has 0.79.
It's also worth pointing out that SF is actually safer for pedestrians than most big US cities. Boston appears to be the safest.
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down? Or do you think they'd stay the same, just with different methods?
Say, for example, that ten people are killed per year; five by gun, two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation. On Dec 31st, the wizard casts his spell.
What do you think the stats will be one year later? Two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation? I don't. I think they'd turn to four by knife, four by baseball bat, and two by strangulation.
Guns are a symptom, not a cause. Unless the root causes in American society are addressed, people will continue to die. The manner of their murder shouldn't even be a point of discussion.
If they really want things to change, they should agree to work towards abolishing stupid patents---not to create semi-trusts that other companies have to fight.
Google has been spending tens of millions lobbying for patent reform, and only started to playing the patent game when it became clear that changing it wasn't going to work quickly enough -- though they haven't stopped trying to reform patents. The apparent contradiction has led some some pundits to question their motives, though I don't see that it's really a contradiction... the patent system is badly broken, but that doesn't mean Google can function in the industry as it is without playing the patent game. It's perfectly reasonable to play by rules you hate because that's what you have to do while simultaneously trying to change the rules.
Personally, I think software patents are a crock, but I'm listed as inventor on a few of them. I hate the game, but it is what it is so I play it while donating to organizations trying to change it. My rule is that I donate 50% of my patent bonuses to the EFF. I suppose if I were a better man I'd donate 100% (after taxes), but I do like to have some recompense for the effort I put into writing disclosures.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I'm speaking for myself only, not for Google.)
in business, things are seldom given. Especially with two very healthy mutinationals. You bet your ass Google paid; bought; paid a "fine".
Not in this case.
Then, Google bought Softcard, and just killed the service. I guess they just have cash to burn.
Google didn't buy Softcard. The Softcard coalition shut down and handed their users over to Google to transition to Google Wallet rather than leave them with nothing.
A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle