Right, and that's a problem why?
Having a pre-set price is *better*.
Having a preset price is not how taxi regulations work. The regulations are based on distance. However, that was not the point. The point was that cabs taking credit cards is more advanced because cabs don't know the charge until the end of the trip. So they have to have technology in the cab to charge a credit card. Uber does not have to have equipment in the cab because they charge the card at the home base.
Well, that's easy to fix - Include the 5% fee in the credit card transaction, but not in any cash transaction.
That is a violation of the CC company rules. If you charge extra for CCs, then they will revoke your merchant card account. There are a few exceptions for this rule, such as gas stations, which are allowed to charge a fee. But I doubt if they will allow it for taxis.
An easier fix is to say you don't have any cash, but if they are willing to drive you to an ATM with the meter off, you can pay them. Suddenly the CC swiper will work.
If you make the extra charge a separate line item, the CC processors generally allow it.
Okay, this is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Can we please stop with all the articles vaguely related to Uber that have zero tech interest.
This is a site for techies, not taxi enthusiasts.
I actually think this is one of the better ones with a tech interest.
I'm not a fan of Uber and their flagrant lawbreaking, but one of the arguments in favour of them is that the taxi industry was broken, and I think this is a good example of that.
London cabs don't accept credit cards?!?! I don't see how you can look at that fact and imagine it is anything resembling a healthy market. I still don't like Uber but this really does show how tech can be disruptive in a positive way.
Taking a credit card in the cab is a lot more difficult technologically then dinking a credit card already on file via an app. By innovating like this, the cab industry is far ahead of Uber.
I find dealerships very annoying because they don't want to sell you the car you want, they want to sell you one of the cars they have on the lot that day! Apparently their goal with every customer is to have them buy something the same day, not come back later to pick up the actual vehicle they wanted. Why can't I order a vehicle with everything I want from the manufacturer, and go pick it up at the plant or port of entry myself, saving the $800 in "destination fees"?
Well, duh, they are paying insurance and interest on those vehicles, as well as maintaining them, washing them, letting you drive them which lowers the value. Further, there are incentives from the factory for moving already built merchandise, rather than special order merchandise. Can you honestly say that being in the same circumstance you would not at least TRY to sell the ones on the lot first?
Sorry, but refusing to sell a product just because it doesn't net you as much of a return (a.k.a. extortion) via repairs is a bullshit reason, and should not be tolerated.
Yes, this is why most software engineers turn down jobs at Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google and instead work at the Board of Education or Department of Human Services even though they pay less money.
You sound even worse. An independent has to specialize in a topic, like transmissions. Would you trust him to work on the cars computer system? A dealership say Ford, has to be able to work on all aspects of fords, same with gm, chyrsler and Toyota. And stand behind their repair.
I wouldn't trust an auto mechanic to work on my cars computer system, whether shade tree or genuine Ford service. Unfortunately, by computerizing cars to the hilt, they have made it where you have to pretty much throw away a $40,000 vehicle if something goes wrong in the software or firmware. Oh, they will continue to try replacing this thing or that thing until you go broke, but it is far cheaper to just leave it on the side of the road and go buy a 1990s vehicle that somebody can service.
He said the salesman offered him a $15-per-month maintenance package that included service for oil changes, belt repair and water pumps. "I said: 'You know it doesn't have any of those things,'" Mr. Kast recalled.
Manufacturers need to step aside and bring prices down. With way fewer components than an ICE car, electric cars should cost much less. Yet the greedy car makers are charging more than an ICE car, go figure. The cost per mile for an electric car should be very less and that goes for road taxes as well.
The quantity of components does not determine the price. The COST of those components determines the price. A 300 HP Ford CE engine brand new costs about $2,800. A set of 4 25 HP electric motors is about $6,000. The battery cost is about $2,000, so the locomotive parts for an EV is about $8,000. Then there is regenerative braking, which is unique to electric vehicles, and I don't know what the price would be for such a system.
So, they are not just ripping you off. Electric motive technology is absolutely more expensive than combustion motive technology.
New cars don't need to be stocked. They may as well be delivered directly to the customers who ordered them. Only for second-hand cars there is some sense in having something like a dealership.
Yes, because people want to buy cars that they have never driven, or even sat in, or looked at in real life to see if they like the color, or interacted with the controls to see if they like them, etc, etc.
Fuck that. I'm not picking up and moving because the car dealers have bought off my legislature.
I'll bet the citizenry has more money than the car dealers. Buy the legislature back. My guess is that the citizenry either likes it the way it is, or if anything they are willing to complain about it, but not willing to spend the money to fix the issue.
..except that the dealers have made that illegal, for the most part. For our protection, of course.
That's what you get for allowing your dealers to make the law instead of your state government.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer