Rideshare is a federally recognized term that encompasses carpool, vanpool, train, bus, and even bike/walk transportation. The creator of Lyft (John Zimmer) knows this very well as he created a fairly-well-adopted ride-matching website called "Zimride".

Zimride doesn't make too much money, though, so he sold it to Enterprise (the car rental company who also is in the carshare and vanpool markets) and created Lyft. Along with other similar decentralized taxi services, he is trying to brand their business models as "rideshare" to equate them with more sustainable practices and receive subsequent leniency in various markets and even public funding.

If you want to see what genuine real-time rideshare is, check out Carma (formerly "Avego"). This is a carpool-facilitating program that makes sure that the driver doesn't make a profit off the shared ride (per State Department mileage reimbursement rates).

If I had mod points, I'd give you a boost, Coward. I, too, am frequently annoyed by the immediate hyperbole of lazy vocabulary usage.

Racism, Sexism - The genuine belief in superiority of one race/sex over another.
Prejudice - This refers to making judgement about something prior to having sufficient genuine experience to make that judgement.
Stereotyping - The oversimplification of characteristics for use in folly and/or prejudice.
Discrimination - Making decisions to include/exclude based on arbitrary traits.
Misogyny - The hatred of women/females.
Objectification - The summary of a person's value by one's body parts.
Insensitivity - Acting without regards to another's likelihood of taking offense.

Now, all of these things are bad. Most people don't like these in our modern society. However, they are not all equal in "badness".

What happened in this presentation was insensitive objectification-- not sexism.

Ok, here's the thing. If Twitter use/mentions currently are a good predictor of election results, then that's cool. However, when you make it known, you invite a bunch of intentional skewers to the mix thus destroying the instrument.

Doctor Who is a creative work. To ask if a new Doctor should be anything aside from meeting certain plot points or general variety would be to ask if "Harry Potter should have been a female..." or "The lead animated character in Cars should have been an automobile made in India."

The creative works do not belong to "the people" and thus doesn't have any obligation to meet their self-imposed standards of fairness or equal representation.

That said, I thought the next Doctor should have been Sue Perkins partially because female, but mostly because her personality is inline with the Doctor's.

Ya, I love the strength per weight that carbon fiber brings, but the stuff is (as of yet) unrecyclable and non-repurposable. Shatter a bit of carbon fiber and all you have is is a bunch of broken carbon fiber. The repair process is shaky and there's no reclamation process for the baked final product...

My idea of a an irony-laden "green" auto:
Carbon Fiber Frame/body
Plug-In Battery Electric
Owned and Operated in Appalachia

Metals are recyclable. Plastics can be recyclable. When we keep our eyes on the cradle-to-grave aspect, we make better judgements for the futures of our children, grandchildren, etc.

Rideshare is an industry term in Transportation Demand Management. It refers (oddly enough) to any of the following modes of transportation:
--Walk
--Bike
--Carpool
--Vanpool
--Bus
--Train

Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar are all well-aware with the misuse of the term and they defend is with the simple statement that "two people going to the same place in/on the same vehicle is a carpool." Detractors aptly point out that it's actually one person with that genuine destination with the other (the driver), being paid to take the passenger to that destination.

So Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar changed their systems early on. No longer would there be fares or fees, but "expected minimum donations" and the driver's weren't for "hire", they were FRIENDS!

"This is my pal, Steve! My app told him to come pick me up and we're going to be best of buddies because he's taking me somewhere I want to go while expecting (though not requiring) a donation!"

In reality, the systems function as taxi services. No rational person can deny that. They need to be insured and everything else at the same standards that taxis are. The end.

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3802633&cid=43867447

It looks like Tesla properly understands the value of combining quick fueling with slow charging! The only thing they have to do is create a system (likely subscription) so that you don't have to pick up your original battery pack. The battery pack should belong to the fueling company and your subscription should provide the insurance/assurance against battery pack damage.

Battery packs will be standardized within a small group of performance levels (just like today's gasoline) and the only other variance between vehicles will be the *number* of battery packs swapped in/out.

And by the time that's perfected (oh the joys of "proprietary technology"), hydrogen fuel cell automobiles should be breaking into the market.

How in the world is this Flamebait? Because I said the Apple product is silly if it's the "budget" version at $229?

My comment here spurred fantastic conversation. How in the world did it get modded "troll"? Is this a case of "disagreement modding"?

I never said it was cheap to do anything with gasoline. Instead, I quite directly say that installing fast chargers are so cost-prohibitively expensive that it's likely that they're being subsidized by the federal government to serve expensive, wasteful electricity to the very, very few people who would actually use them.

At the very least, gasoline stations are paid for by private industry and will be able to pay off their own expense. These fast chargers are just getting people used to sub-market value fuel prices.

Note that if the photovoltaic farm is being installed to power the chargers, then the cost of the photovoltaic farm should be included in the cost of the charging station.

Also consider the amount of electricity per square foot that can be generated even by some of the higher end panels today. How much area would be needed to charge a single Nissan Leaf @ level 2 versus a Tesla at level 3/fast charge? Enough to charge 2 cars simultaneously? If not that, then the sheer amount of batteries required to store the power until needed.

You're right that they're more efficient than combustion engines, but so are bicycles. The point is that fast charges are not the future-- they're a dead end to a technology.

Battery swapping, on the other hand, is the most cost efficient, environmentally friendly, and quickest form of refueling an battery EV.

Unfortunately, yes. It was an error. I meant to say that a "budget" iPod shouldn't have a touchscreen.

First, 100 fast chargers does not a nationwide blanket make.
Second, these things are extremely expensive to install (especially if they're not immediately next to major power lines). We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Third, fast charges are very inefficient by comparison to level 2 chargers-- there's a lot of waste energy.
Fourth, fast chargers are most likely to be used midday when electricity is at its costliest.

So, they're expensive to install, wastes electricity, and are most likely to be used when electricity is at its most expensive. Thus, if they want to install them and want people to use them, there's going to have to be massive subsidies.

Or Tesla's spending themselves into a hole again because they figured out that the quagmire that is proprietary charging payment systems has stymied adoption and they're going to just do it themselves... because their product depends on it! And because they missed out on the only true future for battery-electric vehicles: Battery Swapping!

With a title description of "Basic" iPod Touch, I was thinking it would be a smaller, lighter, more storage, non-touchscreen, longer battery version of life iPod touch. Basically, a cross between the nano and original iPod.

But no, you still have WiFi, Bluetooth, web-browsing, a forward-facing camera, etc. How is that basic? It has a touch screen!

Ok, I'll admit it. I hate iProducts... but Apply could convince me to give up my Creative Zen X-Fi 32GB that I bought 6 years ago for $150 bucks. It has:
+Drag-and-drop music loading
+No need for iTunes
+Buttons so I don't have to stare at the screen to skip a track
+SD card slot
+No need for OS updates and obsolescence

To be fair, the Zen is over-engineered to have the ability to play video, view pictures, etc. and had they omitted those dumb things, price could have been even cheaper.